具体描述
Loeb Classical Library 108
作者简介
Thucydides of Athens, one of the greatest of historians, was born about 471 BCE. He saw the rise of Athens to greatness under the inspired leadership of Pericles. In 430, the second year of the Peloponnesian War, he caught and survived the horrible plague which he described so graphically. Later, as general in 423 he failed to save Amphipolis from the enemy and was disgraced. He tells about this, not in volumes of self-justification, but in one sentence of his history of the war—that it befell him to be an exile for twenty years. He then lived probably on his property in Thrace, but was able to observe both sides in certain campaigns of the war, and returned to Athens after her defeat in 404. He had been composing his famous history, with its hopes and horrors, triumphs and disasters, in full detail from first-hand knowledge of his own and others.
The war was really three conflicts with one uncertain peace after the first; and Thucydides had not unified them into one account when death came sometime before 396. His history of the first conflict, 431–421, was nearly complete; Thucydides was still at work on this when the war spread to Sicily and into a conflict (415–413) likewise complete in his awful and brilliant record, though not fitted into the whole. His story of the final conflict of 413–404 breaks off (in the middle of a sentence) when dealing with the year 411. So his work was left unfinished and as a whole unrevised. Yet in brilliance of description and depth of insight this history has no superior.
目录信息
读后感
正义和利益，这是一对永恒的矛盾。行正义是否一定带来利益？当然不是，而且，恰恰相反，正义往往带来不利——这样的话，为什么还要行正义呢？有没有独立于任何利益的绝对的正义？这本是个哲学问题，却经由一位“历史学家”得到了极为深刻的阐述——修希底德在记叙伯罗奔尼撒战...
看到第七卷。西西里远征。倾尽整个帝国力量的远征军全军覆灭。 撤退的时候，描写跟着军队被撤走的士兵看到被遗弃的活人，“全军上下泪水涟涟”。我不禁也是泫然欲泣了。——看历史的时候，我总是难以像平常那样产生共情的，毕竟两千多年前的事件，如果没有修昔底德或者其他史家...
在大学第一学期的《外交学概论》课上，老师说学这个你们读好三本书就行了，修昔底德的《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》，汉斯摩根索的《国家间政治》和肯尼斯沃尔斯的《人、国家与战争》。当时不知所然，也没想过找来读读。直到今天才算都翻过了，还不敢说读过。 而真正激发我读...
用户评价
这本厚重的历史著作，初翻时便让人感到一种扑面而来的史诗气息。作者的笔触沉稳而老练，仿佛一位经验丰富的航海家，带着我们深入到古希腊那段波澜壮阔却又充满悲剧色彩的时代洪流之中。开篇之处，对伯罗奔尼撒半岛上城邦格局的细致勾勒，便展现了作者深厚的历史功底。他并未急于叙述战事的爆发，而是耐心地铺陈了雅典和斯巴达之间那错综复杂的政治、经济乃至文化差异，这种“慢工出细活”的处理方式，极大地增强了后续冲突的必然性和张力。读到此处，我不禁联想到荷马史诗中对英雄命运的预示，仿佛预感到一场无可避免的巨大灾难正在酝酿。尤其值得称道的是，作者在引用原始资料时展现出的审慎态度，他没有将史料简单堆砌，而是巧妙地将其编织进叙事肌理之中，使得那些尘封已久的声音，在现代读者的耳畔再次鲜活起来。这不仅仅是一部战争记录，更像是一部关于人性、权力以及城邦兴衰的宏大寓言，让人在阅读过程中不断沉思，思考历史的循环与教训。
令人印象深刻的是，作者对“修昔底德陷阱”这一概念的阐释，虽然未直接冠名，但其对权力转移过程中必然产生的猜疑链的剖析，细致入微，发人深省。书中对于雅典民主体制在战争压力下的异化过程的描写，尤为精妙。他没有将雅典描绘成一个扁平化的“恶魔”，而是深入挖掘了其内部的派系斗争、民粹主义的兴起，以及精英阶层在面对外部压力时的集体焦虑。我感觉作者对伯里克利这位人物的评价非常具有层次感，既肯定了他作为战时领袖的远见卓识，也敏锐地捕捉到了他那套看似无懈可击的战略理念中潜藏的致命弱点。这种对历史人物进行多维度、非脸谱化的处理，使得整部作品的深度远远超越了简单的编年史，它更像是一部探讨政治哲学与现实操作之间永恒矛盾的经典文本。
从语言风格上来说，这部作品展现出一种古典主义的庄重美感，但又绝非故作高深。作者的句式结构变化多端，长短句交错使用，有效地避免了单调感。偶尔出现的拉丁语或古希腊语的专业术语，都会在紧随其后的解释中被清晰地消化，使得即便是初次接触这一领域的研究者也能迅速跟上节奏。我尤其喜欢作者在处理那些道德困境时的那种“留白”艺术。例如，在描述某个城邦出于生存需要而采取的残酷手段时，作者只是陈述事实，将道德判断的天平完全交给了读者去衡量。这种克制，恰恰比直接的谴责更具力量，它迫使我们跳出自身的时代框架，去理解那个时代生存逻辑的残酷性。这本书的排版和注释也做得非常到位，为深入研究者提供了坚实的学术支撑，同时又不妨碍普通历史爱好者流畅阅读。
总的来说，这是一部需要“慢读”的巨著，每一次翻阅都会带来新的领悟。它不仅仅是一部关于两城邦之间争斗的记录，更是一面映照人类政治本性的清晰镜子。作者对战争中人性复杂面的洞察力令人叹服，无论是斯巴达的坚韧，还是雅典人的傲慢与失误，都被描绘得入木三分。阅读此书，我仿佛能闻到爱琴海边干燥的风，感受到城墙下士兵们紧张的呼吸。它成功地做到了历史学研究与文学叙事之间的完美平衡——既有扎实的学术根基，又有引人入胜的故事情节。它教会我的，远比单纯了解古代战争的细节要多得多，它让我思考，在面对根本性的生存危机时，即便是最光荣的文明，其内在的裂痕也会如何被无限放大，最终导致无法挽回的衰落。这是一部值得反复研读的、具有永恒价值的史学杰作。
阅读体验上，这本书的叙事节奏把握得极佳，张弛有度，犹如一曲精心编排的交响乐。在描述漫长的外交斡旋与城邦间试探性的摩擦时，作者的文字带着一种冷静的、近乎冷酷的客观性，仿佛他自己就是历史进程的忠实记录者，不带一丝主观褒贬。然而，一旦笔锋转向关键性的战役或重大的政治决策时刻，那种蕴含在文字背后的激情便如同火山爆发般喷涌而出。我特别欣赏作者在描绘军事部署和战场细节时的那种近乎于现场指挥般的精准度，每一个方阵的移动，每一道命令的传达，都清晰得如同电影慢镜头回放。这种强烈的画面感，极大地弥补了古代文献资料在细节上的缺失，让读者能够真正“看”到历史是如何发生的。这种将宏大叙事与微观细节完美融合的能力，实在非一般史学家所能企及，读起来酣畅淋漓，丝毫没有传统学术著作的枯燥感。
I say that our city as a whole is the school of Hellas. We live under a form of government which does not emulate the institutions of our neighbours; on the contrary, we are ourselves a model which some follow, rather than the imitators of other peoples.It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands
I say that our city as a whole is the school of Hellas. We live under a form of government which does not emulate the institutions of our neighbours; on the contrary, we are ourselves a model which some follow, rather than the imitators of other peoples.It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands
I say that our city as a whole is the school of Hellas. We live under a form of government which does not emulate the institutions of our neighbours; on the contrary, we are ourselves a model which some follow, rather than the imitators of other peoples.It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands
I say that our city as a whole is the school of Hellas. We live under a form of government which does not emulate the institutions of our neighbours; on the contrary, we are ourselves a model which some follow, rather than the imitators of other peoples.It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands
I say that our city as a whole is the school of Hellas. We live under a form of government which does not emulate the institutions of our neighbours; on the contrary, we are ourselves a model which some follow, rather than the imitators of other peoples.It is true that our government is called a democracy, because its administration is in the hands
