Ruptures et constantes Book

Not a review, but some thoughts.

I find I'm very uncomfortable when I read things without knowing the proper historical background. If I myself cannot explain a concept to you in plain words in 2-3 sentences, I don't know it & I do not have the right to comment on it.
So,
1) I know close to nothing about Greek history.
2) I know close to nothing about political theory.
And this book go into a heavy discourse with the implicit view that the reader would be well-versed on both subjects. Which is to say, I had absolutely no bloody idea what I was reading.

Nevertheless, it did provide me with a basis of which I can work to build up my classical history -- names I can become familiar with, general timeline I can pinpoint. It is always good (particularly for my way of learning) to start somewhere in a specific era. Let's say I picked up Thucydides before this, my point of reference would then be the Peloponnesian Wars and Athenian-Spartan conflict; or if I went with Hesiod -- Archaic Greece with a focus on religion.

Starting with political theory is interesting.

I suck at political science. I cannot tell you the difference between oligarchy and aristocracy. I don't know how to define "politics" properly. As Perikles said: "the man who stands aloof from politics not just unambitious but useless"

And another line from the book: “The generation which was entering politics in the 420s did not remember the crisis of 462; for them full democracy was something to be taken for granted, something that they could no longer get excited about, for or against.”

oh....
Perhaps the worst fear is to become indifferent, apathetic, ignorant.
How can I justify to be "well-read" if I continue to read history without critical thoughts to politics and economy?