王宫还是暴君的宫殿?重新思考希罗多德历史中的波斯

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
POLIS Pub Date : 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1163/20512996-12340433
Matthew K. Reising
{"title":"王宫还是暴君的宫殿?重新思考希罗多德历史中的波斯","authors":"Matthew K. Reising","doi":"10.1163/20512996-12340433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article contributes to the scholarly movement beyond rigid classifications of East and West by arguing that the Persia of Herodotus’s <em>History</em>, commonly understood to be a tyrannical regime, possessed both external and internal freedom. It was once common to argue that, for Herodotus, internal freedom was the exclusive purview of the Greeks. Recent scholarship has shown that Herodotus laced the <em>History</em> with several incriminating parallels between Greek and Barbarian political practices, thereby casting doubt on the claim that Herodotus uncritically supported Greek supremacy. This article reverses that method and argues, contrary to previous scholarship, that Herodotus offers several indications in the <em>History</em> that he knew Persia was a politically free regime. By examining the three prominent theories on the ancient definition of tyranny and showing their inapplicability to Persian government, I offer an even-handed defense of Persia that neither excuses real cruelty nor condemns without justification.</p>","PeriodicalId":43237,"journal":{"name":"POLIS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The King’s House or the Tyrant’s Palace? Rethinking Persia in Herodotus’s History\",\"authors\":\"Matthew K. Reising\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/20512996-12340433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article contributes to the scholarly movement beyond rigid classifications of East and West by arguing that the Persia of Herodotus’s <em>History</em>, commonly understood to be a tyrannical regime, possessed both external and internal freedom. It was once common to argue that, for Herodotus, internal freedom was the exclusive purview of the Greeks. Recent scholarship has shown that Herodotus laced the <em>History</em> with several incriminating parallels between Greek and Barbarian political practices, thereby casting doubt on the claim that Herodotus uncritically supported Greek supremacy. This article reverses that method and argues, contrary to previous scholarship, that Herodotus offers several indications in the <em>History</em> that he knew Persia was a politically free regime. By examining the three prominent theories on the ancient definition of tyranny and showing their inapplicability to Persian government, I offer an even-handed defense of Persia that neither excuses real cruelty nor condemns without justification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"POLIS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"POLIS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340433\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"POLIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340433","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

希罗多德的《历史》中的波斯通常被理解为一个专制政权,但它同时拥有外部和内部自由。希罗多德曾一度认为,内部自由是希腊人的专有权利。最近的学术研究表明,希罗多德在《历史》中对希腊和野蛮人的政治实践进行了多处罪证确凿的比照,从而使人们对希罗多德不加批判地支持希腊至上的说法产生了怀疑。本文反其道而行之,与以往的学术研究相反,认为希罗多德在《历史》中提供了若干迹象,表明他知道波斯是一个政治自由的政权。通过考察古代关于暴政定义的三种著名理论,并说明它们不适用于波斯政府,我为波斯提供了一个公平的辩护,既不为真正的残酷开脱,也不毫无道理地谴责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The King’s House or the Tyrant’s Palace? Rethinking Persia in Herodotus’s History

This article contributes to the scholarly movement beyond rigid classifications of East and West by arguing that the Persia of Herodotus’s History, commonly understood to be a tyrannical regime, possessed both external and internal freedom. It was once common to argue that, for Herodotus, internal freedom was the exclusive purview of the Greeks. Recent scholarship has shown that Herodotus laced the History with several incriminating parallels between Greek and Barbarian political practices, thereby casting doubt on the claim that Herodotus uncritically supported Greek supremacy. This article reverses that method and argues, contrary to previous scholarship, that Herodotus offers several indications in the History that he knew Persia was a politically free regime. By examining the three prominent theories on the ancient definition of tyranny and showing their inapplicability to Persian government, I offer an even-handed defense of Persia that neither excuses real cruelty nor condemns without justification.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
POLIS
POLIS CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信