О хронологии у Фукидида
Jul. 28th, 2010 03:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a_kleberЭта тема в России была популяризована в экстремальной форме через новохронологов (Морозов/Фоменко), но сами по себе споры о хронологии тех или иных событий в истории идут давно, с привлечением все нового материала (благодаря активному развитию археологии на протяжении 20-го века и восстановлению второстепенных источников).
В огромной куче специальных статей на тему датировки Пелоппонезской войны у Фукидида (к монографиям у меня доступ в основном через гугл.букс, а там многого нет, зато через jstor есть доступ к предварительным статьям или рецензиям) можно найти обзорные статьи на тему, и судя по разбросу мнений, что-то я не вижу конца-края этим дебатам.
В 1880'-1900'х гг было популярно дебатирование датировки знаменитых трех затмений в "Истории" Фукидида с сугубо астрономической точки зрения (это объясняет интерес к этим затмениям у Морозова - в одностороннем порядке решил внести свою лепту, но не смог вовремя остановиться, а мы теперь расхлебываем:), но на самом деле обойтись только астрономией при интерпретации текста никак невозможно - все упирается в конкретное описание, насколько буквально его можно воспринимать, учитывая то-се и тд. Как выясняется, с тех пор дебаты продолжались отнюдь не только с астрономической тз и отнюдь не только по затмениям. А что если Фукидид был пропагандистом и намеренно исказил хронологию? и тд и тп. Вот что рассказывается о текущем состоянии этих споров в одной рецензии 1999 года:
«Traditionally, the response of historians to the unrivalled position of Thoukydides has been to accord his narrative almost scriptural status. This is best exemplified in the great five-volume commentary of A. W. Gomme, K. J. Dover, and A. Andrewes (A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 1945-81). In more recent years, however, there has been a new willingness to put to one side questions of historicity, and to examine Thoukydides' text as a work of literature rather than as 'a source'. Several major studies have focused on Thoukydides' manipulation of the reader, demonstrating the self-conscious use of large-scale literary devices such as ring-composition, tragic plotforms, and repeated themes, as well as small-scale literary tropes, such as intertextual allusion and significant changes of focus. Thoukydides has been revealed to be, as Virginia Hunter puts it in her important book, 'an artful reporter' (Thucydides the Artful Reporter, 1973).
In such literary readings, Thoukydides' confident retelling of the minutiae of minor military campaigns becomes not so much the fruit of careful research but a rhetorical device - and one well known to later ancient theorists - to instil in the reader confidence in the reliability of the writer. Similarly, the numerous, long, and notoriously difficult speeches embedded in Thoukydides' narrative become not verbatim reports, but vehicles for his own musings on the workings of power, war, and human nature (as he himself implies at 1.22). In more extreme versions of the literary approach to Thoukydides, the very concept of the Peloponnesian War is a Thoukydidean invention: two distinct wars, the Archidamian War (431-421) and the Dekeleian or Ionian War (413-404) have been combined to trump Herodotos' Persian Wars (e.g., A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography, 1988), while the earlier conflict of 461-446, sometimes referred to by modern scholars as the 'first' Peloponnesian War, has been downgraded and marginalized. However, awareness of the literariness of Thoukydides' text has not, in fact, led to wide-scale challenges to the basic historicity of his narrative; the main focus of research on Thoukydides remains the reliability of this narrative for constructing an accurate account of fifth-century history. Increasingly, historians are willing to reject assumptions of Thoukydidean infallibility and to attempt to control his narrative by looking for internal consistency and by comparing it with other sources. Schreiner's book falls into the second category and is a bold, if not audacious, attempt to challenge the accepted chronology of the pentekontaetia, that is, the roughly 'fifty-year period' (478-432) between the defeat of the Persian invasion of mainland Greece on the one hand, and the immediate flashpoints which led to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War on the other. Here we are more than ever dependent on Thoukydides, who narrates events in this period down to 440/39 in a brief excursus in Book 1.89-118, in which he attempts to trace the background to Sparta's hostility to Athens' growing power. Schreiner has already spent several decades arguing that Thoukydides' account of the pentekontaetia is seriously flawed, both in terms of what it leaves out and in terms of its chronology (e.g., 'Anti-Thukydidean Studies on the Pentekontaetia', Symbolae Osloensis, li [1976], 19-63; 'More Anti-Thukydidean Studies on the Pentekontaetia', Symbolae Osloensis, lii [1977], 19-38). This book is a culmination and restatement of that work.
That Thoukydides' pentekontaetia is seriously flawed is now widely, though not universally, accepted, and various attempts have been made to construct a more accurate chronology, such as those of Philip Deane (Thucydides' Dates, 465-431 BC, 1972) and Ron Unz ('The Chronology of the Pentekontaetia', Classical Quarterly, xxxvi [1986], 68-85), both of which retain the overall Thoukydidean chronological structure while suggesting minor adjustments and filling in lacunae. Ernst Badian, a collection of whose papers were published in 1993 (From Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and Historiography of the Pentekontaetia, 1993; rev. ante, xvi [1994], 549), has long argued that Thoukydides' excursus on the inter-war period was written with the deliberate aim of pinning the blame for the Peloponnesian War on Sparta and on its paranoia at Athens' growing power. Far from being a neutral reportage, the pentekontaetia becomes a studied, rhetorical argument, its historical data deployed selectively and knowingly, and designed to convince the reader of the central thesis of Periklean Athens' grandeur and reasonableness. »
Tim Duff
Review Article: The Accuracy of Thoukydides
The International History Review, xxi. 3: September 1999, pp. 569-852.
Johan Henrik Schreiner. Hellanikos, Thukydides, and the Era of Kimon. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1997; George Cawkwell. Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Pp. ix, 162.
полностью пдф
В огромной куче специальных статей на тему датировки Пелоппонезской войны у Фукидида (к монографиям у меня доступ в основном через гугл.букс, а там многого нет, зато через jstor есть доступ к предварительным статьям или рецензиям) можно найти обзорные статьи на тему, и судя по разбросу мнений, что-то я не вижу конца-края этим дебатам.
В 1880'-1900'х гг было популярно дебатирование датировки знаменитых трех затмений в "Истории" Фукидида с сугубо астрономической точки зрения (это объясняет интерес к этим затмениям у Морозова - в одностороннем порядке решил внести свою лепту, но не смог вовремя остановиться, а мы теперь расхлебываем:), но на самом деле обойтись только астрономией при интерпретации текста никак невозможно - все упирается в конкретное описание, насколько буквально его можно воспринимать, учитывая то-се и тд. Как выясняется, с тех пор дебаты продолжались отнюдь не только с астрономической тз и отнюдь не только по затмениям. А что если Фукидид был пропагандистом и намеренно исказил хронологию? и тд и тп. Вот что рассказывается о текущем состоянии этих споров в одной рецензии 1999 года:
«Traditionally, the response of historians to the unrivalled position of Thoukydides has been to accord his narrative almost scriptural status. This is best exemplified in the great five-volume commentary of A. W. Gomme, K. J. Dover, and A. Andrewes (A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 1945-81). In more recent years, however, there has been a new willingness to put to one side questions of historicity, and to examine Thoukydides' text as a work of literature rather than as 'a source'. Several major studies have focused on Thoukydides' manipulation of the reader, demonstrating the self-conscious use of large-scale literary devices such as ring-composition, tragic plotforms, and repeated themes, as well as small-scale literary tropes, such as intertextual allusion and significant changes of focus. Thoukydides has been revealed to be, as Virginia Hunter puts it in her important book, 'an artful reporter' (Thucydides the Artful Reporter, 1973).
In such literary readings, Thoukydides' confident retelling of the minutiae of minor military campaigns becomes not so much the fruit of careful research but a rhetorical device - and one well known to later ancient theorists - to instil in the reader confidence in the reliability of the writer. Similarly, the numerous, long, and notoriously difficult speeches embedded in Thoukydides' narrative become not verbatim reports, but vehicles for his own musings on the workings of power, war, and human nature (as he himself implies at 1.22). In more extreme versions of the literary approach to Thoukydides, the very concept of the Peloponnesian War is a Thoukydidean invention: two distinct wars, the Archidamian War (431-421) and the Dekeleian or Ionian War (413-404) have been combined to trump Herodotos' Persian Wars (e.g., A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography, 1988), while the earlier conflict of 461-446, sometimes referred to by modern scholars as the 'first' Peloponnesian War, has been downgraded and marginalized. However, awareness of the literariness of Thoukydides' text has not, in fact, led to wide-scale challenges to the basic historicity of his narrative; the main focus of research on Thoukydides remains the reliability of this narrative for constructing an accurate account of fifth-century history. Increasingly, historians are willing to reject assumptions of Thoukydidean infallibility and to attempt to control his narrative by looking for internal consistency and by comparing it with other sources. Schreiner's book falls into the second category and is a bold, if not audacious, attempt to challenge the accepted chronology of the pentekontaetia, that is, the roughly 'fifty-year period' (478-432) between the defeat of the Persian invasion of mainland Greece on the one hand, and the immediate flashpoints which led to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War on the other. Here we are more than ever dependent on Thoukydides, who narrates events in this period down to 440/39 in a brief excursus in Book 1.89-118, in which he attempts to trace the background to Sparta's hostility to Athens' growing power. Schreiner has already spent several decades arguing that Thoukydides' account of the pentekontaetia is seriously flawed, both in terms of what it leaves out and in terms of its chronology (e.g., 'Anti-Thukydidean Studies on the Pentekontaetia', Symbolae Osloensis, li [1976], 19-63; 'More Anti-Thukydidean Studies on the Pentekontaetia', Symbolae Osloensis, lii [1977], 19-38). This book is a culmination and restatement of that work.
That Thoukydides' pentekontaetia is seriously flawed is now widely, though not universally, accepted, and various attempts have been made to construct a more accurate chronology, such as those of Philip Deane (Thucydides' Dates, 465-431 BC, 1972) and Ron Unz ('The Chronology of the Pentekontaetia', Classical Quarterly, xxxvi [1986], 68-85), both of which retain the overall Thoukydidean chronological structure while suggesting minor adjustments and filling in lacunae. Ernst Badian, a collection of whose papers were published in 1993 (From Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and Historiography of the Pentekontaetia, 1993; rev. ante, xvi [1994], 549), has long argued that Thoukydides' excursus on the inter-war period was written with the deliberate aim of pinning the blame for the Peloponnesian War on Sparta and on its paranoia at Athens' growing power. Far from being a neutral reportage, the pentekontaetia becomes a studied, rhetorical argument, its historical data deployed selectively and knowingly, and designed to convince the reader of the central thesis of Periklean Athens' grandeur and reasonableness. »
Tim Duff
Review Article: The Accuracy of Thoukydides
The International History Review, xxi. 3: September 1999, pp. 569-852.
Johan Henrik Schreiner. Hellanikos, Thukydides, and the Era of Kimon. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1997; George Cawkwell. Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Pp. ix, 162.
полностью пдф
