INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.Thc sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Pagc(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they arc spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an Indication that the film inspector noticed cither blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you wilt find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped Into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages In any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.
University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD„ ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 8121791
G ervasi , Ro bert A lfred
THE CONCEPT OF ‘ELPIS’ IN THUCYDIDES
The Ohio State University PH.D. 1981
University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 THE CONCEPT OF ELPIS IN THUCYDIDES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
i the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
ftr Robert A. Gervasi, H.A.B., M.A.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University 1981
Reading Gonndttee: Approved By
Dr. June W. Allison Dr. Charles L. Babcock Dr. Robert J. Lmardon To Kan
i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Prof. R. J. Lenardon for his constant oioouragement both in the development of this dissertation and throughout ny graduate program. Thanks ace due also to Prof. J. W. Allison and Prof. C. L. Babcock for their help ful advice during the revisions of the draft. Finally, X am especially grateful to Prof. A. G. Woodhead for his friendship, couisel, and hospitality during ny studies at Corpus Christ! College, Cartridge, in 1975-1976.
i i i v m
Jine 2, 1950 ...... Bom - New York, New York 1972 ...... H.A.B. (Surma cun laude), Xavier Uiiverslty, Cincinnati, Ohio 1973 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Coludna, Ohio Stumer, 1974 ...... Hill Scholar, The American School of Classical Studies at Athena 1973-1975 ...... Teaching Associate, The Ohio State* University, Colurbus, Ohio 1975-1976 ...... Dissertation Research Student, Corpus Christ! College, Canbridge
MASTER'S THESIS "Healing as a Dramatic Motif In the Iliad ," The Ohio State University, Decqiher, 1973.
FIELDS OF STUOT Major Field; Creek Literature Studies in Thucydides. Prof. A. 6. Woothead Studies in Homer. Prof. R. J. Lenardon Studies in Plato's Symposiun. Prof. S. V. Tracy
iv TABLE OF canons
Em * Acknowledgements i l l Vita iv Introduction 1 I. Euripides, Thucydides and die Syntax 9 of Eloia
H . Semantic Problem and Thucydidean Usage 31 m . Pericles and the Athenian Character 44
XV. The Mytilenaean Debate 73
V. The Melian Dialogue 93
VI. The Slcilioi Expedition 106
Conclusion 129
Appendix: Aesdrylua, Thucydides and Elpis 135
Bibliography 151
4 INTRODUCTION Even a cursory reading of Thucydides' History will suggest the prominent position which intelligent planning holds in successful p o litical action. Xunesia, pronoia, logismos ■ gnome—these words constantly recur in Thucydides' pages, indicative of th eir decisive role as assets of the good statesman.1 Indeed, Thucydides himself, in the celebrated passage dealing with his aims and methods, states quite clearly the practical purpose and orientation of his work: 8m i lib flovXjeovrai r&v t t yivoftJrb
okohup teal t u p ptXMpruv wort aZOit xarb rb bvOpuirwo* towvtmp koI mpavXrjtrtuv ItrtvBai, tylkifui Kplvtur avrb bpmiimit t£tu But if anyone desires to examine the clear truth about the events that have taken place, and about those which are likely to take place in the future—in the order of human things, they will resemble what has occurred— and p renounces what I have written to be useful, I shall be content. (1.22.4)2 This statement underlines the basically forward-looking nature of the historian's approach. The past can provide the basis of rational calculation about the future; ta rellonta, despite its obscurity, is as nuch, i f not more, of a concern as ta genomena. This prognostic aspect of Thucydides' work has been much discussed.3 I stress it at the outset because i t furnishes a valuable clue not only to Thucydides' attitude toward historiography, but also to his depiction of the motivational forces in political action. Intelligence and knowledge of the past ace important both to political leaders and to political analysts, and Thucydides Intends his work to be useful to future men of affairs. It is axiomatic, however, that the future always Involves the unknown and the fortuitous, which the statesman cannot avoid, even i t he would.^ For even when a ll the relevant data are analyzed, action is taken not with an absolute certainty of the outcome, j but at most with a reasoned expectation. It is the inevitable element of risk, of strategy adopted in the face of the unknown, ! vhich 1s included in the concept of elpis. This study is an investigation of die concept of elpis as it appears in Thucydides. The range of ideas suggested by the word is by no means limited. It appears often—149 times in all its fbrmsS—and at many crucial points, and i t would be valuable i to understand the field of meaning within vhich Thucydides uses the word. In his analysis of hunan behavior and the well-springs of political action, Thucydides seems to have regarded the idea i of hope much as we do today—as a s one times unreliable but generally indispensable motivational force. At die same time, elpis has long been regarded in an unfavorable light, largely because of the b rillia n t and provocative ideas of F.M. Comforrf.^ According to Comfcrrd, much of die History, specifically Books 4-7, is patterned on the structure of Aeschylean tragedy. The heroine of the drama is Athens, whose rise is aided by tudie in the Pylos affair, whose success makes her hybristic and covetous, aid vho pays retribution for her covetousness by the disastrous defeat In Sicily. Elpis, In this view, operates as one of the agents of Athens' greed and delusion, which leads her on to uidertake that fatal expedition. "Elpis*1, Comfort! wrote, "Is the passion vhich deludes nan to ooint on the future as if he could perfectly control it: and thus she Is a phase of Infatuate pride, a tenptress who besets prosperity."? To be sure, Gomford's general view has been criticized; his book was regarded with some anblvalence even a t the time of publica tion.® Yet In the main he has exerted a powerful influence on the course of Thucydldean studies, even i f that Influence Is only fe lt sihUndnally. V.J. Hunter, for exanple, regards hope as one of "the emotions which substitute for careful calculation", ju st as H.P. Stahl speaks of It as "ein schlechter Planfaktor". J.J.A. Schrljen reiterates Gomford's theory of die negativity of elpis In the History, aid both P. Huart and J. de RattLlly aver that elpis appears as a baleful Influence throughout Greek literature ("we dangereuse illusion"; "how l i t t l e relationship there is between hope and reality "). The views of H. North and A.W. Gotnne, cxi the other hand, are more balanced, insofar as they adatt the possibility that elpis can be rational and beneficial.^ Even if we are well aware that Gomford's thesis is extreme, we should nevertheless like to explain the sense of conscious artistry which we inevitably feel Is present in the History. Comford's analysis tends to do precisely that, and there Is considerable merit in his approach, with its special focus on the dramatic quality of the History. The generally accepted evaluation of elpis as "a phase of Infat uate pride", however, did not square either with ny own experience of people and events or with what I tnderstood Thucydides' view to be. 1b regard elpla unequivocally as a negative characteristic in Thucydides, and to regard Thucydides himself as a pessimist, smnpd to me to diminish the value of the History as a ktana es aiei. I believe the historian was quite serious about the future usefulness of his work. If in the final au&ysis, horieter, we regard Thucydides as a pessimist and the History as "the record of a failure",^ of dhat value Is the work in facing, nidi less solving, the critical which confront the world today? Leaders certainly need insight into political behavior and m iinteratending of humn nature. Above all, what is needed is a sense of possibilities, a soise that hanan society cot be improved despite its depravities; in short, what is needed is a sense of hope. These are the contri- VatMrw x helluva the History makes, even to our own world. To support this belief, therefore, aid to encourage yet a more positive wAwt-jniHng of Thucydides' view of history, an in-depth examination of elpis seemed a premising aiterprlse. The study begins with an analysis of the syntax of elpis in Thucydides aid Euripides, in order to set the usage of the concept » in the History within a wider ccntmporary context. 1 have chosen the wodcs of Euripides as the primary focus for the dismission be cause the sice of the corpus, aid more inportaitly the frequency of usage of elpis found within it, permits a filling oaaparlsan with TtucydLdes th ai would the plays of Arlstophoies aid Sophocles, in 3 which the word elpis Itself appears msch less often, lb amplete the discussion, however, I w ill make sunmaty observations on the use of •ipin in these authors. Also, as another control to on ouerall uider- stending of elpis. the Appendix to the study deals with the idea of elpis in the Onesteia. Following the chapter on syntax is a discussion of the semantic problems involved in finding a suitable translation for elpis aid a gunnery o f the concept's ccm otatlw range. I hove then selected for detailed investigation those portions of the History in which elpis is thematically prominent:
1. The speech of the Corinthians at Sparta and the speeches of Pericles. The purpose of this section will be to describe the dynamic aspects of the Athenian character and to point out the salient differences between Athens mid Sparta, with a specific concentration upon the idea of elpis. References will be made to other speeches, such as those of Archidamus and Teutlaplus, but the main focus w ill be the Athenian spirit, of which elpis is an isporti t part. 2. The Mytilenacan Debate and the Mellan Dialogue. One can the cm tral question of the Mytllenaean Debate thus: how can the elpis for revolt entertained by a sub ject people be beat dealt with so as to discourage similar designs by other peoples? It is in the Mellon Dialogue that the draoatlc quality of the History becomes moat pronounced. The enphasls of my investigation will accordingly shift fzan principally an analysis of the sense-content o f elpis to a study of the manner in which Thucydides uses the concept as a dramatic element in his narrative. The Dialogue, when 'consideration of I t Is focussed on elpis. states in dramatic terms the findonental question of the ultimate basis of hope. The Sicilian Expedition. The concept of elpis in this most critical event in the History will be discussed both in relation to Thucydides' overall use of the word and as a dramatic device by which the historian heightens the tension in the narrative of the struggle between the Athenians and the Syracusans. Notea
the role of gnome, see P. Huart, Ctaane chez Aristophanes et aea contecooralnefl (Paris, 1973) and L. E&uids, Chance and Intel ligence In Thucydides (Cartridge, 1975).
^Quotations are from the Oxford text of H. Stuart-Janea (1900, 1970). Uhless otherwise indicated, all translations are those of
B . Jewett (2nd ed ., Oxford, 1900), rev. by P.A. Brunt (New York, 1963, 1970). 3E.g.j C.N. Gochrane, Thucydides and the Science of History (Oxford, 1929). Cf. W.R.M. Lech, Clio Enthroned (Cartridge, 1914),
P-193.' ^Ednnda, Chance and Intelligence, p.202.
%,-A. Betant, Lexicon Thucydideun (Hildesheia, 1843, 1961), I, 323-326. The word elpis appears 54 times in various verbal forms, 76 times as a now and 19 times as an adjective.
%.M. Comford , Thucydides Mythistoricus (London, 1907). See also Plutarch, AlclMades 17.
^Comford, Thucydides Mythistoricua, p. 167.
^Review by J . Postgate, 7 9ftir elpis as m unfavorable characteristic, see, e.g., P. Huart, l e VftffAnljrtre de 1*analyse psychologLque dais l'oeuvre de Thucydlde (Paris, 1968), pp.140-150; V. Hunter, Thucydides the A rtful Reporter CEtoccnto, 1973), p.129; J . de Ronilly, Thucydides aid Athenian Imperialism, txois. P. lhodjr (Oxford, 1963), p.291; J.J.A. Schrijen, Elpis: De voorstelling van de hoop in de Griekse LLterntaig tot Arts to teles (Groningen, 1965), pp.99-118; and H.P. Stahl, Thiicydldea: Die Stelling des Mecischen im geschichtlichen Prozess (Mnich, 1966), p.5. Gf. H. North, Sophrosyne; Self-Knowledge and Self Restrain t in Cteeek literature (Ithaca, 1966), p.105, and A.W. Gonme, Historical Oanmentary an Thucydides (Oxford, 1945-1970), H I, 446. JQj. de FanLlly, Thucydides and Athenian imperialism, p .357. EURIPIDES, THUCYDIDES AND THE SYNTAX OF ELPIS An investigation into the sense-content of elpis in the History introduces ixnnediate questions: to what extent is Thucydides repre sentative of his era In his usage of elpis, and in what ways are his lflngiAgu and meaning inique? This chapter will explore the syntax of elpis in Thucydides, particularly as ccnpared with the appearance of the word in the plays of Euripides. An analysis of the major syntactical constructions in which the word appears in Thucydides will provide a clearer understanding of the attributes of elpis and of the related concepts with which it is associated. An examination of elpis w ill f ir s t provide a point of reference by which we can then determine the extent to which Thucydides followed or differed from the contemporary usage of a major A ttic w riter in his use of elp is. I w ill conclude with reference to Aristophanes and Sophocles as a farther control for the investigation of elpis in Thucydides. Since the purpose of tills linguistic investigation is to glean thematic implications from syntactical usage, the schema of the discussion includes contextual as well as syntactical categories, as follows: 1. Elpis felpizein) with an infinitive or infinitive construction. 2. Elpis felpizein) with a dependent clause. 3. Elpis felpizein) in colloquial or parenthetical expressions. 9 ) 10 4. Adjectives used with elpis, and elpis used In a genitive of description. * * 5. Elpis with objective genitives. 6. Contextual statements about specific elpides. 7. General or absolute statements about elpis. 8. Other forms of elpis found in Thucydides. 1. Elpis felpizein) with an infinitive or infinitive^ construction. This is the most ccnrnon syntactical structure in which the word appears, both in Euripides and in Thucydides. The in fin itiv e is used to describe the thing or event hoped for, expected, likely to happen, supposed, or projected. A. Euripides An. 720: PoCv 5 X£ ovt ' f|XmCcc f3p<5xoic; Hel. 432-3: £Xxtc. • . XapeEv Tt vcdxatc* Or. 779: poXdvTi cuOfjvat xaxwvj Or. 1070: c t £!Jv P-® XPftetv aoC ©avdvTog JJXiucag Iff. 144: t (v* ikn(b* dXx^v t* eioopflTE pf} S avetv$ HF. 745-6: a nrfpoc o&ioxe 6iA ypevog rfXTiia' av naOeCv Hr. 521: ad?7t bl ouOeta', xprftetv Zyu Hr. 150-3: o ' dXxlCouaf xou. • • aupspopdc xaTotXTteCv Hec.820: to3c oflv £?' dv ate dXnCaat upd£at xaXug; Supp. 845: *coA^f{p.a0'9 o le fiXiutov atpffaeiv itdXtv Supp. 790-1*. J[\mCov av nexovdlvai n&tioQ Tic. 994-6: ti|v Qpuyfiv n<5Xtv. . . f[Xutaag xaraxX dcetv baxdvataiv Ale. 146: £ \ tiI c p iv otSx^T* £oti ot^eoOai pfov; Al£- 293-4: xofcic £Xxtg flv. . . (fit doe tv xdxva 11 Med. 767: ^Xntg *odg dpodg Tefcebv bCxqv Ifed. 1032-4: ? u fa no0* ft 6 i5ott )V oc efxov dXrcteag — xo/vXag ev olliv , YnpoLSooxyoetv T **** xat xaxGavoucav xeP°*v e« TieptOTeXetv Elec. 249: o^X $ iwrefa ffXiu£EV £x&uoeiv Ttoxd. Xon 348: Gfjpdg 2.80.1 (N): dXredba e tv a i x at Ltafaant o v Xa|3eCv 2.85.4 (N): ^nCbog otfcqg aCet vaopnxfa*tv 2.102.4 ( N ) : ^ n ic « • • udaag. . . t o O t o *a0ctv 3.3.3 (N): ^nC&a etvai dneixOdvTag drcixeoetv d^-vu 3.32.3 (N): odbfc t ?|v dXavfoTqv elxov p,i{. . , vaCg IleXonovvqotuv eg'lw vfav rcapa^aXeCv . 3.84.3 (N): dXutc 6itdx£iTai o^aXetoi xav adxo&g 6tao(JCeo0ai 4.70.2 (N): dv dXnt&i etvai dvaXapetv hCoaiav 5.9.8 (S): dXfttg y ^P pdXiCTa adtoig oCtu ^oPq6f|vai 5.102 (S): p€T& 6d -roC bpupdvou dxi xat ox7|vai dXittg dp6ug 6.87.4 (S): iknCta udv dvTiTUYeXv dxixouptag d ^ ' :(pu5v, &£, . . p.fj d&eet etvai xivbuverfeiv 7.41.4 (N): eXnt'ba qbq dxupdv e^xov, . . xpci'aooug eiTvat 7.46.1 (N): Ka* *** *efxn ^v'AGqva^uv 12 7.48.2 (N): dXittboc *ti £xi itapeix* rtovtjpdxepa xuv ctpexdpuv £oeo0ai 8.40.3 (N): £\iitc Hat buvaxdv xuXOaai 8.48.2 (N): no\k&$ lknCba$ etxov. . . ic fcauxodc ncfucmjaciv nat xuv xoXe^iuv emxpaxqociv 8.86.7 (N): hoaA?Iv IknCba etvai xat ^uppflvai 8.89.1 (N): dXntbaG xe oxi tco \\& g £ y e i xdxetvoic xd oxpdxeupa bia\Ad£eiv xai neAoicovvrjotuv nepidoeo0ai. C. Thucydides (verbs) 1.1.1 (N): IkntaaQ ii£yav ™foeo^oi nat di; loXoYifoaxov xuiv itpoytYevnri^VwV 1.11.1 (N) j fftoaCov adxdGev TtoAep-oGvxa pioxedoeiv 1.107.4 (N): IknCaavxeQ bfj^ov xe xaxaitatSoeiv 1.127.2 (N): o\5 pdvxot xoooCxov JjX tu Cov xabeCv av adxdv 2.7.1 (N): e t no6£v xiva uq*e\tav /[XtiiCqv Ixdxepoi xpooA.Ttyec0ai 2.11.6 (S): xP^ HO* *^vo 6kn(£civ bid pdxnc tdvai atfxodc 2.20.2 (N): xodc Y^P ‘AWrjvatouc tfAuitlev^ . . Cou»c dv cneCeXOeCv xat xfjv y *Iv °«h av wpubeCv xp-ndf^vai 2.75.1 (N): ^ATctCovxeG xaxtoxrjv a tp e o iv £ato0ai 2.84.2 (N): ff\xiCe« • • od pcvoTv xfjv xd£iv. t , dkkd UpHeaeraOai. . . xat. . .xapaxiiv itap£{civ r A* 2.90.4 00•* tyutiCov ndaag xdc vaGc duoXffyeoOai 3.30.3 (S ): . . xaxa\rj 3.62.4 (S): buvdpe^c ^XjitoavxEg £t i ^SaXov oxJjoeiv 4.8.4 (N); ^AntCovxeg fgbtug atprjaeiv o(xobdpn^a 4.13.1 (N): ^XitfCovxeg xd* . , xetxog ttyog i-iv £xeLV 4.9.3 (N): dXrcfCovxdg rcoxe vavat xpaxi^oeobai 13 4.24.4 (N): ifXntCov. . . dyoppoCvTcg £ 4.76.5 (N): fab fu c tJX tiw^ov . - ; oiS p,eveiv xaxck xupav Ta noa*maTat rfX\a« . . xaTaoxlJoeiv atixd £gto eniT^jOeiov 4.80.1 (N): t Q dxcfvuv yfl JfXTuCov d7tooTpdyeiv atixodg 4.85.2 (S): ilX.Ttfoap.ev 'AOqvafoog xa6aipi{oeiv 4.105.1 (M): d\iLfoav. . . xeptnoiifoekv 5.7.3 (N): odofc ffXiuodv ot itte£ i£ v ai otSfcdva 5.28.2 (N): dXitfaavTEg Tfjg IleXoitovvflooo J)yf{cEaOai 5.39.2 (N): iXxfCovTEg. # . xop-faaowai av afoot IlrfXov 5.40.2 (N): fXr.fCovxeg. . . i.d^paxoi £ceo0ai 6.15.2 (N): dXufCuv ZixeXfav. . . xat Kapxnbfoa Xfocoeai 6.16.2 (S): dXttfCovreg afo?|v xaTaneitoXe^f|a0a i 6.56.3 (N): flXiutov yip xat *co6c p.?! npoek&foag. • . cOcXqoeiv a 6.71.2 (N): ^X ju Cov . . . foaxoiSaeotlai 6.20.3 (S): ag itoLCtju • • upoodoeoGai 6.90.3 (S): faofug ^XitfCopev xaTaxoXe^iiJoekv xat iict& Tafoa x at t o 0 fcdjixavTog iAAtjvixoO a p tc iv 7.21.2 An. 1062: itofav icepafvuv Y^ai G^A u V} Hel. 826: tI XP*fca *>ffioai; xtv* fctrfycic P* thn(ba't Hel. 740: dywvac ot p£vovo( t uc ^XxfCo^ev, Hel. 656: rfc av rd6' fywiuoev Pporuv notcf Hel. 1524: otS y&P &\nCbuv tcu pfprpta Or. 977; &c nap* {Xntbac poCpa fiafvci Or. 1186: *zC XP^a 6xot^6t)c t(v# £Xn(6a} Iff 804: in 3 odx i\uCbi qxfvdrf Hec. 680: ef oot (favetrat QaCpa xat xap* dXnfbac ♦ Tr 505: t C bffrd ji* dAuiOuv xoluv Cfxoj 17 Hipp. 1120: ci?x £t i y ip HaOopiv’ El. 352: dv dXftfeiv to Ox * B. Thucydides 3.31.1 (N):dX,it(ba 6* elvat* odbevt ydp dxovaCue dytxOai' 4.62.3 (S ):^ xap'dXrtCba xa^£1tt3c o^aAAdoUu 6.103.2 (N)xai t£a\c ftpooxtSpet outoCc £q dXnCbae 7.25.9 (N): brjXjwaovTat £ tv £v &7t(oiv eCai 7.66.3 (S): xal nap* i\nCba toC adx IA 1014: >|ruxpd 1\x (q IA 986: xcvJjv xaxdaxov Ion 866: 9 po0 6 a t b9 dtatffeeg H ec.'351: tn e i'c * £vpdq>8nv &nft>uv xaAulv tfxo Tr 344: GCu xe |i£Y^^u}V Te 1252: '*8g ptydkaQ d \it(b a c Mad. 1033: e?xov tcqM&c ^ C v B. Euripides (elpis In special constructions) IA 742: &Ji£fcog t* <5jie a^dXrjv Or. 693: dvxaGO* iXnfbog Jtpoctfxoiiev Ion 697-8: dXxC&uv ji^TOXOC ?v Hec. 370-1: o^x* lAnfoog Y^P o&xe t o p &p£ Bdpoog Med. 498: d\xC&wy b9 fjndpxojiev Hipp. 1105: fcSvcoiv b£ xiv'^X uC bt xedttuV Rhes. 581: iXx(t>uv 6* fjp^pxo^ev Bacc. 617: IX xfoiv b* dpdoxexo C. Thucydides (elpis with adjectives) 1.74.3 (S): dv Ppaxef? 1.143.2 (S): peT& xfjg Ifoaovog Sp.a £tai£oog 2.43.6 (S): xoivfjg dAxfoog dpA 2.51.6 (N): l\n£&og Tt eJxov xod^g 3.32.3 (N): dXicC&a od&2 tt| v £\ax(axrjv efyov 3.40.1 (S): i\nCba ouxe \6yi# 7tioxf)v otfxe xP*?Fa0lv uvqxi^v 4.81.3 (tl): ^Xitfba Apatov 4.108.4 QX):tXr.C&i inepioxdiuut* 19 5.14.1 (N)s 'tJjv £\7ifba Tffg fcVlC JUorf|v 5.103 (S): a t vavcpat £Xfttbcc 6.31.6 (N): Coney fazCbi -p3v peXXdv-cuv 6.87.4 (S ): « . dXittba 6.104.1 (N) j o&t£rt iXufba od&cp,Cav e^x** & rtfXmjioc 7.41.4 (N): iknCba fjbrj £yvpdv elxov 7.67.1 (S ): A peyC(rrTj fa n lg p-EY^OTqv x° t t/)v npodOftfov xapex^aL 7.75.2 (N): dvrl peyAXiig £\n£&og 7.61.2 (N): t?|v ^Xirffcc t o 3 8.86.7 (N): tioXXjJv faxCba 8.89.2 (N): far.C b eg . . . -ioXXAc D. Thucydides (elpis in special constructions) 2.64.1 (S) ft vdoog tipflYP® P^vov 6^ tS»y xdvxuv eXxlbcg xpetoaov 4.65.4 (N): ftttOTtOetoa (oxftv afjg £Xitf&og Both authors demonstrate a wide range of concepts associated with elpis. using adjectives of quantity as well as of description. Thucydidean use is much more frequent and extensive than that of Euripides, but both authors suggest a broad spectrum of associations in both positive and negative concepts. In Euripides, elpis is variously bold, cold, enptyj and foolish, as well as being good, great and many. The range of attributes in the History is similar. Thucydides, however, frequently associates the idea of firmness with elpis. Bebaia, piste and echura are all used as descriptive 20 adjectives, In certain contexts, therefore, elpis In Thucydides may be associated with the ideas of firm security aid sound action, not in the static sense of asphalela, which as the privative of sphalein implies preservation of present security, but in the dynamic, forward-looking sense of anticipated success. 5. Elpis with objective genitives. This construction is the most cannon means of expressing the thing hoped for or expected. I have also Included elpis with the genitive absolute and citation of other less frequent constructions where elpis and elpizein introduce the object of hope or expectation. A. Euripides An. 27: p* *£*1 Kpooffye aud^vxoc x^xvov Hel. 1031: £v xu b 9 t\TiCbsQ ouxqpfac HF 80: x ( v ' I k z C t9. . . auxqpfac HF 84: i'KnCbci auxqpfac 1fc. 452: d t a t c . . . owrrjpfoc Ale. 131: pfou iKnCba IT 1413: 1 \hIq toCg £fvoic ouxqpCac El. 624; ipw ^\nC b9 £ ( dp.qx<£vuv Or. 1058: l7tl CXlfalXpOWC B. Thucydides 1.65.1 (N): IXitfba o\56epfav £xuV aurqpfac 1.138.2 (N): xoC'EWqvixoC IXxfba 1.144.1 (S): dXntba xofl xepidoeaQai 2.44.3 (S): naCbwv iknCbi 2.56.4 (H): iknCba flXQov xoO £\eCv 21 2.89.10 (S): *axa\Coai neXoTiovvqafuv xi}v dXitfba xoC vauxixoO 3.20.1 (N): odbE>i£a dXitlg xipupfag odbfc ouxtjpfa 4.17.4 (N): afel yip xoO bpdyovxai 4.96.7 (N): Cxaoxof xiv a e?){ov dXxlba GwrqpCag 5.14.1 (N)i T*lv ^Xzfoa xffg fupfjg itioxfjv 6.31.6 (N): pEyfaxg ^Xxfbi xwv ^EAXdvxuv 6.68.2 (S): jiEydXqv xi|v iknCba xfjg vfxqg 6.77.2 (S): {oppdxuv dXnlbi 6.104.1 (N):Tffc pfcy SixeXlag odxdxi iknCta odbcuYav tfxev 6 rdXiTtitoc 7.61.2 (S): 6\n(ba xoO pb^ot) 8.48.3 (N): xflg l\n(boQ xoC xapd paoiXbug pxcOoC 8.53.2 (N): e f xtva IXTifba £xe i ocjxrjp^ac xfl nbXei 8.82.1 (N): xifv x e uapauxfxa dXrc^ba. . .xng t e ouxTjpfac xal xrfg xuv xcxpaxoafuv xipupiag 8.81.2 El. 579-80: HX. £yu a* ddXnxug. • . Op od&* ydp ^Xittoa El. 609: odb’dXXdXoiitac dXicfc># B. Thucydides 1.69.5 (S): a t yc fydxepat dXicdbec /fbn xtvdg nou xat dnapacxedoug 6td xd ittaxeiJaai dcpOetpav 2.42.4 (S): xevCag dXitdbi, ug xav dri. . . icXooxtfaetev 3.57.4 (S): iueCg xe, w Aaxebatudvtot. A pdvn dXndg, bdbtpev pi} oo pdfJatot jxe 5.113 (S): Aaxebatpovdotc xat xdxq x at dXicfot nXeCaxov bh icapoDepXquevot xat ictoxedoavxeg jcXefcxov x at a^paxqceooe 6.30.2 (N): uex* dXitd&og xe Spa tdvxeg x at <5\o HF 105-6; o Jto c &’ dvfjp Supp. 479-80: £>.;;tc & ticxov. q koa X& c xd\ek6 cuvfj^'', ayovoa etg 6xeppoX Tr 632-3: od xadxdv, u> nat, x£ BX&teiv to xaxOaveCv* x& pfcv yip odb£vf t^> o* i'vetaiv dXnlbec. Phoen. 396: b * ItotCbCQ pdaxouoi yvy&bat, (ic K6yoQ. Bacc. 907-9: p u p fat b*£ti puptoic eta tv t\7ttbec* at p tv TeXeorijGtv i v S\pc£ ppoxoEct Qi 4e dndfJqcav. B. Thucydides 2.62.5 (S): xat t ?|v xdXpav dn^ tljc opofac xdxqc q tuveoic dx uxdpcppovoc fcX°P(J't ^Pav xapl^exai, dXrctbi xe qooov moxeiSei, iv Ttp dnopift i tcx^c, yvupq ‘Tl**v oxapxovTuv, qc £ paioxdpa ?} itprfvoia. 3.45.1 (S): Spue bi xfl dtattbL dicaipdu.evoi xiybuvedouai, xat odbefg tu xaxayvodc bauxoC pq JiEpidoecoai Tp cmpooXcrfpaxi q\6ev Iq to bcivdv. 3.45.5 (S): j t e l \ n t c xat 6 £pu»c Ttavxf, 6 ptv nyoupevoc;, 6 6 e^exopdvq. xat o pbv xqv en>pot)Xqv ex a p i e vtYVkjaxexaL a^aXevxuv xai ev ox ^j exi muXdCexaC xic adxfjv YVwpLaOetaav odx eXXeinei. 7.67.1 (S): x& bfe itoXXi np&£ xdc dnix^tci^aetc H pEYfoxq iktiiQ peYkoxrjv xat xfjv xpoOvptav ^apdxcxai. In both authors elpis seems to be an essential ccnpanian to hunan behavior and therefore is a dynamic characteristic. What makes elpis positive or negative is, generally, the degree of attainability of 26 its object. What makes elpis potentially tragic is that attainability of specific objects, much less of soteria, is never coopletely predictable. Note that in almost every case, specific comnents about elpis are set within a dramatic context—in Euripides, the drama Itse lf, in Thucydides, the speeches—and so, even though they are generalizations, they too must be considered within a given context. The fact that absolute statements about" elpis in Thucydides occur so frequently in speeches is Interesting since i t suggests that in describing elpis, Thucydides may be using techniques of personification appropriate to drama. These selections are c ritic a l, and I w ill return to them in later chapters. 8. Other forms of elpis found in Thucydides. i Thucydides uses a umber of ccnpoinds of elpis and elplzein not fbind in die plcys of Euripides, specifically anelpiston, anfclpis to te r a, euelpis and antelpisantes. 2.51.4 (N): np&c Y&P dviXmoxov xpajidjiEvoi 3.30.2 (S): £xetvo£ xe dvdXxiaxot £itkYev£odat £v x tv a 0 6.17.8 (S): x a t vCv oflxc dvlXxioxol xu p.fiX\ov neXoxovvifatot is faAc iy^vexo 6.33.4 (S): xal odx dv£\xioxov fjioiye 6.34.2 (S): £c haPXf]fc<$va 6.69.3 (N): wept xifc adxlxa dveXnfoxoo auxijpfcg 7.47.2 (N): xd xe &k\a 6xt dvl/uiioxa udxoCg l 7.71.7 (N)s xoCc Adrjvafoig dv^niuxov xd xaxd y Rv ouuqaccOai 1 1 8.1.2 (tO* dvlAiuoxoi ^oav Iv x^ xapdvxt ffuOljocodoi 8.106.5 (tO j dvlAxtcxov xfjv edxux^av 7.4.4 (N): xd lx xfjg Yfc* • • dveATiicxdxepa 1.70.3 (S): itapd brfvaptv xoXurjxat xat xapd Yvtfunv xtvbuveuxat xat lv xoCg beivotg ed£\nibcc 4.10.1 (S): dncploxlnxug etfc\iug &p.doe xupfjoat xotg Ivavxlotg . 4.62.4 (S): odbl ia>^g plpaiov, btdxi xat etfeXiu 6.24.3 (t0: td & iu b e g dvxeg ouOfJoeoOat 8.2.4 (N): wavxa^ddev xe edltaibeg Gvxeg dnpoma- oCaxwg fotxeoGai bievooOvxo xoO xoAepou 1.70.7 (S): dvxeX^taavxeg dXXa IxXifpuaav xfjv xpdav These passages suggest that anelpiston has the same range of pram-trig as does elpis. though In a privative sense. Depending on context, it can mean "ixilikely", "the unexpected”, or sirply "despair". Euelgis, in contrast, is more restricted. In every instance it suggests a confidence that is optim istic even beyond the bounds of logic. This sense of "having high hopes" is an integral part of the Athenian character, as Chapter Three w ill show more fully. Xn this chapter I have examined the syntax of elpis in the pleys of Euripides and in the History to determine the salient features of its usage and the extent to which Thucydides parallels mother major writer of his age, at least insofar as' elpis is con cerned. The analysis reveals that Thucydidean usage does indeed re flect contemporary nodes of expression, as fcnxid in Euripides. As migit be expected, the use of the infinitive is paramount, and confirms the essential futurity of the concept of elpis. Elpis is also frequently associated with soteria as the backdrop against which specific elpides derive their meaning. Accoridngly, specific instances of elpis can have a wide range of attributes and objects, from firm to foolish, from logical to reckless, depending on the extent to which its immediate object is realistically attainable. The ultimate object of elpis, however, remains sSteria. Soteria may mean different things in different contexts, but the intangible concept itself, together with the idea of futurity, gives elpis its grounding and direction. Thucydides explores the operation of elpis in more detail than does Euripides, as-is appropriate to the nature of his narrative and to his analytical approach. His concern for detail is even exemplified by the variety of forms in. which he expresses the idea of elpis, most notably by his coinage of the word antelpizein to describe a salient aspect of the Athenian character. The use of elpis in Thucydides' narrative does not differ markedly from the use of elpis in the speeches, except that the speeches tend to contain more poetic descriptions and even personifications of elpis, as appropriate to the context in which each speech was delivered. A survey of elpis in the plays of Aristophanes and Sophocles confirms these observations. Elpis appears nine times in Aristophanes, and elpizein once, and these passages illustrate the range of usage which we have seen in Euripides and Thucydides. The word is modified by positive adjectives such as agathe (Plutus 212) and chreste 29 (Wasps 306-7), as veil as by the more negative attribute lepte (Knights 1244). Moreover, Aristophanic usage also exemplifies the connection between elpis and sSteria: theoi, Zeu so ter, eisin elpides (Thes. 1009); elpis soterias (Thes. 946). Sophocles uses elpis with a similar range of attributes. Among the 35 instances of elpis (and 8 of elpizein), the concept is variously "good1 and "bad', "fair" and "enpty”: e.g. agatha (Tr 125); kaka CM. 605) j kale (Tr 669); kene (Aj. 478). Sophoclean usage is distinctive, however, not in the syntax but in the meaning of elpis. Elpis sometimes has not only a negative connotation but also a definite meaning of fear o r foreboding (OT 487, 771, 1432; Aj[. 799; Tr 951). This special meaning of elpis is relevant to the examination of the Spartan character, discussed in Chapter Three. In stannary, a study of the syntax of elpis suggests its role as a dynamic force in hunon behavior. We will see that that force emerges at key points throughout the History and helps to give the narrative a sense of unity and dramatic momentum. ^ Succeeding chapters deal with such key passages in order to understand more closely how Thucydides creates that momentixn and sustains i t throughout the course of his narrative. As I have suggested, how ever, the proper understanding of the text often turns on questions of semantics, and so I will examine that issue more closely in the next chapter. Notes 1 Quotations are from G. Murray's edition Euripldls Fabuiae (Oxford, 1909, 1969). 2 Even in Ehglish, words like "salvation" and "safety" express not so touch a specific object as an interior assurance which an external object or circumstance may support. Cf. soter as an epithet for Zeus. 3 Reference to the Sicilian expedition seems clear, supporting 414*413 as the ccomcnly accepted date of conposition for this play. J.H. Finley,Jr., "Euripides and Thucydides?', Three Essays on Thucydides (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), p .8. I do not mean to inply that the History was carposed entirely at one time. Rather, I wish to support the central in sist of F.M. Comford's Thucydides Mythistoricus (London, 1907), even though I strongly disagree with his understanding of elp is; that central insight was that Thucydides was guided as much by an innate sense of artistic w ity as by a "scientific" concern for factual reporting. For a recent review of the conposition controversy which supports this view, see V. Hunter, "The Ccqposition of Thucydides' History: A New Answer to the Problem", Hlstoria 26 (1977), 269-294. With a modified Unitarian approach, Hunter convincingly • • argues that the History was composed in two major cycles, focusing on the Archidamian and S icilian Wars, respectively, and that the f ir s t cycle was revised in lig it of and to foreshadow the second. SEMANTIC PRDBLEJE AND THUCYDIDEAN USAGE Hie difficulty of discovering l£ mot juste Is always a perplexing problem. It is often quite easy to hit upon an adequate expression of the basic meaning of a word, but frequently and perhaps inevitably there is some distortion of connotation. There can be error in two directions: either a nuance present in the Greec is lost or slightly altered in translation, or the English suggests a nuance which the m Greek may not have or have so strongly. Hie latter case is relevant to the interpretation of elpis. Elpis is usually translated either by hope or by expectation.1 Hope is used when the basis .of the elpis in question seems to be more emotional than intellectual, or when there is a greater element of the fortuitous than of reasoned calculation. Expectation, conversely, sug gests a more rational approach in the assessment of a situation. While these words are fair approximations of elpis. certain difficulties present themselves. First, the word hope implies principally the desirability of what is hoped for—one does not hope for what one does not want*-whereas expectation makes no such implication. Elpis, though it may indeed entail desire, is first and foremost concerned with.the future; the desirability of a specific future event is of secondary consideration. It is the primacy of the temporal factor which allows the word to admit of two rather markedly different translations. n 32 A second difficulty is that i t is not always easy to detexmine Whether the principal grounds of elpis are emotional or intellectual. Thucydides is here quite at the mercy of the translator. An instance of elpis which may have seemed to Thucydides perfectly rational and likely to be realized, may to a translator seen a vague or unlikely wish. Or, even if he thinks the desire to be well-founded, he may decide to erphasize that element of desire and so he may use hope rather than expectation, despite the fact that hope has somewhat less of an Intellectual flavor. In the account of Pericles' campaign in the Peloponnese, for example, Thucydides mentions the unsuccessful assault on Epidauxos in the following way: * . AfuJfitPOi 4 M it 'Ew&aipo* rijr rhAorom; * Jowett's translation is here representative of most: Arriving at Epidaurus in Peloponnese, the Athenians devastated most of the country and attacked the city, which a t one time they were in the hopes of taking but did not quite succeed. (2.56.4)2 The word hopes is not incorrect in this context, since it is quite obvious that Pericles desired the success of the assault. It seems equally d e a r that Thucydides, or certainly at least Pericles, consid ered the project to be strategically sound, with a fairly high probability of success.3 In this regard Jbwett very rightly under stood the force of ge to be quite—the expedition almost succeeded. Thucydides' method of narration and choice of words suggest that its failure was due to the staple fact that events cannot be coopletely controlled. Despite one's best efforts, the future does not always 33 turn out as one would lik e i t co do. The intellectual faaaie for P ericles' venture, however, is p artially obscured when the word hope Is used In translation. 1b avoid such semantic pitfalls, it nay be helpful to think of elpis as prolectlon as well as hope or expectation. Projection can include both die motional and die intellectual, both that is desired and that is sinply expected. What is luportant is that projection is fundamentally concerned with the future, about the atwice which one takes toward what is not ccppletely knowable. Gne's projections may be soundly based or they may be Idle imaginings. In any case, die word projection suggests a pro pensity for one not to be confined by present drcunstances, but to look ahead, however blind that vision might be. The field of meaning of projection is therefore quite similar to that of elpis. Although at times a smoother translation might suggest hope or expectation, it should nevertheless be kept in mind that elpis is neither pejorative nor ameliorative, neither motional nor intellectual; Its chief connotation is that it looks toward the future. Thucydideai usage of elpis la in accord with these general considerations in that i t oovexs the entire spectxun of mealing, from the thoroughly rational to the thoughtlessly emotional. For smnple, the intellectual aspect of elpis is quite plainly re vealed in the opening sentence of the History, which merits foil quotation: 3* GovnvMBijf ’AflijpaZot (wiypa^rt ri>» vtiktpov riv tTrXo* I m n n \< rl* > v m l 'Atiqvatuv, i t ivokipriemp vpdt oAArfAovr, ip fifu v o t tvtivs KaOierrapivov *al ikvUrat plyav rc Inertial m l ifiokoytirarcv tu p irpoytyttnjpiveov, rticpaipeSptvot S n | Acputfoy r it rc [pair is airrbv &ptf>6npoi ■xapatrKtvjj rfj ir&erp m l rA A\Ao 'EkXijpipbp S p iv (wurraptvov repot itcaripovt, rb fA» tWvti ri ft) xal biavoovptvov. Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war in wnich the Peloponnesians and the Athenians fought against one another. He began to write when they first took up arms, expecting that it would be great and memorable above any previous war. For he argued that both states were then at the full height of their military power, and he saw the rest of the Hellenes either siding or intending to side with one or the other of them.4 Tctanairomenos depends most invnediately on elpisas; Thucydides is careful to furnish evidence for his projection. Both sides were at the height of their strength. The rest of the Hellenes were taking sides or were intending to do so. In Thucydides' view, therefore, the belief that the war would be the most worthy of mention had a film foundation. As we have seen, there are other passages in vhich the close connection between elpis and logic is sim ilarly apparent. In ' 2.102.3, for exmnple, Thucydides makes seme observations about the topography of Acamanla, particularly the area about the river Achelous. Close to its mouth, near Oeniadae, he says, lie the Islands celled Echinades, some of thich have already been joined to the mainland because of the powerful flow of the river. Thucydides then writes: H col srfcrac 4 Ip *oAA$ tu'1 &p xpdvy tovto watitlr rtf rc ydp /trip* it lari piya In the not too distant future, the same thing will n>bably happen to all the islands, for the current ?s strong . . . (ny translation). 35 The reasons for his projection are the size and turbulence of the river as well as the large mnber and irregular placement of die islands, which allow for die river no easy passage to the sea aid are therefore conducive to die accinilation of soil deposits. The inportant point for the issue at hand is that Thucydides offers evidence and logic for his conjecture; gar follows closely after elpis.^ In the vocabulary of Thucydides, then, elpis can have a rational foundation. Of course, i t would be naive to suppose that the histo rian's own clarity of logic was universally or even widely shared. In fifth-century Athens as in every age, conjectures formed with recklessness aid without solid logical support were no doubt occmcn. Thucydides states that a fte r the successes of Brasidas, many cities subject to Athens planned to revolt on the assunptlon that reprisals would not be forthcoming. He comnents on their error of judgment: «al y&fj «al 22 They thought that there was actually no danger, for they had underestimated the Athenian power to an extent which later became apparent. They tended to believe without proof what they wished, instead of exercising foresight which saves men from mistakes. I t i s cannon for men to rely for the fulfillment of their desires on unreflecting hope, and only when they are averse to some course, to give reason full power to reject it. (4.108.4) Here clpidi. together with boulcsei, is set in opposition to prOnoia and logismo. When desire becomes stronger than reason, projections are unexamined and therefore rash. It is significant, however, that 36 Thucydides added the adjective aperiskeptS. That a qualification of alpldi la needed at all suggests again that for Thucydides elpla itaelf la not necessarily Irrational. Elpis la aperiakeptos only idmn it la chiefly the result of bouleaia rather than pronoia. the danger created by elpla without pronoia. and the possible results of joining elpla with tuche ore alao well Illustrated by Ttacydides' narrative of Demosthenes' expedition to Aefcolia.® In Thucydides' view, i t was with reliance on nothing more than luck (te tuche elpiaas) that Demoathenea attacked Aegltiun without waiting for reinforcements, although hia army was seriously de ficient in light-armed javelin-throwers (pallon gar akontlaton andeea cn mallata) (3.97.2). His haste led to a disastrous rout and the loss of the finest Athenian men In the Anchldamlan War.^ The foregoing exanples will serve as convenient reference points for the spectrum of meailnga which elpis governs. Host projections, however, do not readily adnit of classification as Intellectual or tnexamlned, but f i t somewhere bet ween the extremes of reason and recklessness. Indeed, the degree of logic Inherent In projection la often not at Issue, and the primary consideration lathe Influence which projection exerts upon the course of events. In this sense, for Thucydides an active, dynamic force, since i t always has some effect upon the historical process. Whatever its Intel lectual basis, it 1s always a source of motivation. Gocmentlng on the favorable lnpression of the Lacedaemonians which the allies of Athens held after the Sicilian expedition and for which Brasldas 37 m s in large measure responsible, Thucydides observes of that noble irpArot yip i£tk8u>v «ai6o$at t&ai Kara v6vra 3 iyaSir iKitCta fyKanfAiirc fi^atov ur «al ol aAAot roiovrol ilffUf. For he was the first Spartan to command abroad, and he had a thoroughly good reputation; this made men con fidently. expect that the others would be like him. (4.813)8 The historian does not judge whether or not this projection is logically justifiable. One might plausibly argue that it is not, since Spartan policy is, in general, not nearly so vigorous as that of Brasidas. Moreover, the projection which Thucydides w ill shortly suggest as aperiskeptos0 is also occasioned by the activities of Brasidas. Nevertheless, such inferences, however likely, are really beside the point. The sole consideration which Thucydides records, and records without reservation or opinion, is the fact that Brasidas inspired confidence which later told in Sparta's favor. Thucydides' account of Themistocles at the court of Artaxerxes similarly exemplifies the confidence that is attendant upon elpis. • Three reasons are stated to explain Themistocles' great influence: his outstanding reputation, his projection that Greece might be made subject to the Great King, and, especially, the frequent manifestations of his ability and intelligence.10 Vhether the elpis of Greek conquest was based cn intelligence, that is, whether Themistocles could ever have effected such a project, Thucydides declines to mention. Even if the suggestion of conquest was part of Themistocles' guile, it Is recorded without a hint of disapprobation. Indeed, Thucydides pro ceeds to praise Themistocles in the highest teims. It is again proper 38 to conclude that elpis is significant as a source of motivation and confidence which the skillful individual can elicit. I offer one final illustration of the dynamism of elpis. one that is redolent of the confidence which Brasidas inspired in a large audience, and of the clever manner in which Themistocles exploited, with careful calculation, his own influence. In 411, the Athenian leaders at Samos decided to recall Alcibiades in Older that he might prevail upon Tissaphemes to transfer support from Sparta to Athens. Upon his return, Alcibiades aroused great expectations anong the army: _ gal wtp) r&v voktruQv m M h rfcwi' if *iA- „ ,0 a , „ a&rovr ov cpiKpiit rav ficXAJitwv KaQCarrj, *al imtpfWJutP iptyiXvvt ttji* lavroO ivi'apu/ trapi ry Tnrira- fi/mtU tva of rc oUoi TTji> 6\iyapx(av i\oirrtt tpo^oarm ■ tor sal jiaXAop at (vvupwrUu tiaXvdtUv xal ol iv rrj TtftuinpAv t t avrov iyoitv ml avrol iffI wkiov 6af•• *| rotor, of r t nok/piot ry Tureattfpvtt i f puikiara Sutj3dk~ Xouro xal [diri] ruv xrnapxowuv ikziluv imtifnuv. He then spoke at length of the political situation, inspired them with great hopes for the future and magnified to excess his own influence over Tissaphemes. He meant thereby to frighten the oligarchy at home and promote the dissolution of their clubs, to exalt himself in the eyes of the army at Samos and fortify their confidence, and to widen the breach between Tissaphemes and the enemy, and to blast the hopes of the Lacedaemonians. (8.81.2) 39. Rio observations mist be made. F irst, tAiile Thucydides describes straightforwardly (buberbnllon emepalune) the dissimilation by Vhlch Alcibiades aroused great hopes for the future, he expresses no objection to It, either on moral or on political grounds. Indeed, Alcibiades did succeed in driving a wedge between the Spartans A d Tissaphem es.^ Second, Alcibiades' general goal, "Chat the enemy be deprived of their projections" (my translation), •sens to be as inportant as his more specific aims. These considera tions reaffirm the isportance of elpis in connection with confidence Ad enthusiasm. Indeed, the confidence engendered by a firm projection itself becomes an additional asset in the estimation of the viability or likelihood of the projection. Conversely, a loss of confidence becomes a serious liab ility .^ In short, a likely aofeitlon beoames even mare likely when It is pursued with vigor, and every leader well taows the value of higi morale. To rely more on morale than one cm reasonably afford to do is of course foolhardy. But to channel It wisely, whA it is acconpsnied by great strength, is to add to that strength and to increase one's prospects for success.^ Neither the ignorance of the people at large as to Alcibiades' true in tentions, nor the exaggerations of Alcibiades himself, are morally reprehensible or even politically uwlse. For while it may be desirable for the entire group to possess a accurate and adequate inters tending of affairs, this is not absolutely necessary so long as the leader possesses such a proper inters tending. And 40 there can be little dotfct that Alcibiades possessed a thorough grasp of the clraxnatancea.14 To sunnsrize, o f cardinal Importance in relation to the concept of elpis is the idea of futurity. Elpia nay be predominantly emo tional or rational; sane degree of rationality Is usually necessary for the success of an enterprise. It Is natural and cannon for a large group to manifest a more emotional elpis. but such a state of affairs Is politically viable so long as the leader of the grotg> possesses a solid rationale for his elpis. In any case, elpis Influences hunan behavior and therefore can be regarded as a positive, dynamic f o r c e . ^ Elpis is basically forward-looking and dynamic. Hope or expectation are therefore appropriate translations In certain contexts, depending on the degree of desirability or certainty of a specific out cane. Project ion, however, can also be an accurate translation, and it closely approximates the central meaning of elpis itself, since both the Greek and the English words focus on the experience of believing the accuracy of perceptions or the attainability of objectives. Of course, beliefs may not always correspond with reality; projections may indeed be "enpty hopes", and hope may therefore offer a smoother translation. Nevertheless, i t is projection itself, or more accurately the constant process of forming projections, vhich gives to individuals and societies a sense of dynamic progress. The next chapter will deal .with this uiderstanding of elpis as projection in light of Thucydides ^ portrait of the Athenian character. Notes Ip. Huart, tie Vocabulalne de l'analyse psychologlque dans l'oeuvre de Thucydide (Paris, 1968), p. 141. ^Jarett could just as easily have translated elplda more literally in the singular. the purpose of the expedition see F. Adcock, CAH. V, 200, and "Epiteichlsmos In the Archidanian War", CR 61 (1947), 2-7. Adcock thinks that Pericles Intended to establish a foothold in the Pelopcnnese. Against th is view is D. Kagan, The Archldamlan War (Ithaca, 1974), pp.72-75, vho believes that If Epidaurus had been captured, i t would have been very d ifficu lt fo r the Athenians to occupy it permanently; hence, Pericles sinply wanted to sack the d ty in accordance with his plan of doing as much harm as possible. Of course, we can never be certain about Pericles' . Intentions in the matter, but Kagan seems to be reading into Thucydides what may not be there, and I incline to the more natural Interpretation by Adcock. At any rate, both scholars agree that the expedition almost succeeded. *1.1.1. The casments of F. Adcock, Thucydides and His History- (Geribrldge, 1963), p.6, are apposite. 5on elpis as synonymous with cikos, see Virginia Hunter, Thucydides die Artful Reporter (Toronto, 1973), p .36. 41 42 *3.94-98. # ^3.98.4. Thucydides' meaning here is not ccnpletely clear. The use of beltistoi Is odd. since die seamen were quite prob ably thetes. But Is seems certain that tode refers to die Archidanian War. See A.W. Gagne. H istorical Comnentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1956), IX, 407-408. *0n the late date of this passage* see A.W. Gceme, 'Tour Passages In Thucydides", JHS 71 (1951), 73. 94.108.4. IQl.138.2. On Themistocles' life and Influence, see A.J. Podledd., The Life of Themis toclea (Montreal, 1975) and Robert Lenardon, The Saga o f Theralatoclea (London, 1978). Ufl.83. *3on the inportance of confidence and boldness (tharsos) as an essential element of power, see A.G. Wbodhead, Thucydides an die Nature of Power (Cartridge, 1970), p.41 and passim. l%tthusiasm alone, however, may sometimes win die day: cf. the speech of Demosthenes at Pylos, 4.10.1. ^M.F. McGregor, 'The Genius of Alcibiades", Phoenix 19 (1965), 27-43. 43 ^ Moreover, the oonoept o£ hope is etynologically related to the ideas of satisfaction and cheerfulness. Elpis. epalpnos and voluptaa are cognates of the Indo-European root 0A 77 See Bsdle Boisacq, Dictionnalre etyraologlque de la langue gpecque. 4th ed. (Heidelberg, 1950), p .247; and Alois Walde, Indogjermanische Mbliothek. 2nd ed. (Heidelberg, 1954), p.834. PERICLES AND THE ATHENIAN CHARACTER The "truest cause" of the Peloponnesian War, in the opinion of Thucydides, was Sparta's fear of Athenian aggrandisement.^ The nature of the Athenian spirit must therefore figure in any comprehensive interpretation of the History. I t is especially important in this study, because elpis is an essential character istic of that ethos. Several speeches in the initial books of the History reveal the centrality of the idea of projection to the Athenian character: the first speech of the Corinthians ait Sparta, the reply by the Athenians present at Sparta on business, and the speeches-of Pericles, most notably the FUneral Oration. Other speeches, such as those of Archidamus and Teutiaplus, illustrate the Spartan ethos either directly or, as . in the case of Teutiaplus, indirectly, and the portrait of Athens is thus further defined by the contrast with Sparta. For an adequate analysis of elpis. it is necessary to examine closely several passages from these initial speeches. The first speech of the Corinthians at Sparta puts the matter squarely.^ The purport of what the Corinthians say is that the clash between Athens and Sparta is one not simply of material resources but of attitudes as well.3 The main lines of the contrast are clear: Athens is bold and aggressive, whereas *4 Sparta temporizes and is reluctant to engage in foreign affairs. Sparta* s constitutional stability is the source of her sense of propriety and moderate behavior (sophrosyne) / but i t also makes her ignorant of wider problems. Her tendency to delay and her lack of aggressiveness have been responsible for the growth of Athenian power (1.69.4). Consequently, the Corinthians maintain, the survival of the Peloponnesians has been due to the mistakes of the Athenians rather than to positive efforts on the part of Sparta: 4wl iv9 fatKOtX» ovrol ipvvteBai (3ov\ttr6t fioAAoir im- 6vrat, «al it rv^at irpbt %roAA$ IwaTinripovt Karairnjrai, hnardfittvi nal riv /9ap£apoi> abrbv Tttpl avri r& *A(£w rrtfiaXivra, *cal vpot avrot/f rovr 'AOrji'aCovt woAAa ffpat jJJfj rots b paprrjfiair u> avrwv paAAoi* if rff i f ifiCiv riftwptq vtpvycytvtffUvovs, iwil at yi ipirtpat iXwi&tt iibij Ttpdt trov xal dirapacrtcrvovr dia t o Turrtvcrat IQQtipav, Instead of attacking your enemy, you prefer to await attack and take the chances of a struggle that has been deferred until his power is much increased. And you know that the barbarians miscarried chiefly through their own errors and that we have more often survived against these very Athenians through blunders of their awn than through any aid from you. Some have already been ruined by the hopes which you inspired in them, for so entirely did they trust you that they took no precautions themselves. (1.69.5) The ge odds a tone of sarcasm to the clause ("the hopes which you inspire"). The Corinthians thereby irply that the expectations 46 promoted by the cautious and largely insuccessful policy followed by Sparta hardly deserve even to be called projections. The elpis associated with Sparta lades the vigor and aggressive confidence which the word normally comotes. The Athenians, on the other hand, possess these qualities in abundance. Even then they suffer a reverse, they immediately form new projections. Thucydides coins the word antelplaein to express this amazing creative resilience: tjv b ' Spa rov «ol - i l p q . . . but I f they suffer a reverse, they a t once conceive new hopes to conpensate and supply their wants. Far with them alone, to hope is to have, as they lose not a moment lit the execution of an idea. (1.70.7) I t la d ifficu lt to believe that Comford could have been correct in regarding th is description aa a censure of Athens on the part of Thucydides.^ 7b the contrary, the neologism antelpldea suggests that Thucydides regarded the Athenians' indomitable hopefulness aa an essential stlnulus to their dynamism and creativity. The Oorlnthlans, of course, are a hostile party, and they wish to portray the Athenians as hyperactive, but even they seem to regard 47 the energy of Athens with astonishment, if not with admiration. In effect, they are urging die Spartans to emilate the Athenians, as far as daring projection is concerned. This la die intention of the succinct contrast In 1.70.3: o50tf M otji&v ffal itapi iivafiw roXpjral teal Ttpii yrmfflif KivBwcvral n l iv roit Itunit eWAffiicr They are audacious beyond their strength; they run risks vhich policy would condenn; and In the midst of dangers, they are full of hope. It la to the Athenians' credit that they are euelpides. If it were not, then tolmetal and klnduieutal would also suggest criticism; but clearly it is precisely bolcfeiess and daring which die Corinthians ere urging die Spartans to make manifest. The Corinthians exaggerate these qualities, when applied to the Athenians, primarily In order to make the Spartans' lade of confidence more glaring and repre hensible: the Athenians are bolder than they can afford to be; the Spartans are as pessimistic as the Athenians are hopeful.** It Is well at this point to mention a passage in Plato's Laws. where the "Athenian stranger1', within a larger discussion of educa tion, offers a definition of elpis. It would be uwise to generalize from th is passage alone about P lato's attitude toward elpis. The passage, however, does conveniently sun up soma of the points which thus far I have been trying to make: 48 A 0 . Flpor fii tovrout i/ufvtv av fijfar jitkXdvrttv, oip Mounr uiv Sropa tk-it, Z3iov Sc, • inactivity had promoted. Archidamis retorts in a sim ilar fashion in his warning against a hasty decision to invade Attica: fa frp y i rjj ikvt&i imupdfufa u t raxv watw0i} We mist not for one moment flatter ourselves with the hope that if we ravage their country, the war will soon be at an end. (1.81.6) Ihls tone of caution extends throughout the speech and is expressed by such words as asphaleia> to.bradu, hesuchia ^ Diis portrait of Sparta is a fairly consistent one, at least in the early years of the war. The speech of Teutiaplus (3.30) deserves some attention in this regard, for it both shows the lingering hesitance of the Spartans and also focusses upon the idea of projection. This speech, the shortest in the History. has for various reasons occasioned uuch discussion.^ Die ques tion which has particular relevance for this study is why the speech appears at all, since the advice of Teutiaplus was not taken. Die following is a resume of the narrative. Die Peloponnesians sent a fleet of forty ships to relieve Mytilene, afte r that city had revolted from Athens. Although undetected by Athens, the fleet wasted valuable time, and arrived at Errbatum on the seventh day after the hVtilenaeans had surrendered to the Athenians. Die Peloponnesians s till possessed the possibly decisive weapon of surprise. Teutiaplus of Elis urged the Peloponnesian leaders to attack fVtilene. Die Spartan comnander Alcidas refused to do so. Die speech of Teutiaplus is important because it shows what the Spartan Alcidas should have done but failed to do. Die essence of the speech is elpis. specifically the forceful aid optimistic kind of projection which Sparta refuses to adopt. Moreover, the elpis involved in these circumstances is clearly reasonable as well as energetic. Teutiaplus twice uses an 52 argunent from cikos (lines 3 and 7). He also uses elpis twice, in a similarly argumentative manner. The Athenians, he says, would not expect an attack by sea (line S). If an attack is made suddenly and at night, and with the probable support of sympathiz ers within the city, success is to be expected (elplzo katpiephthenai an ta pragmata--lines 10-12). Teutiaplus then exhorts his associates to be bold (to apoknesomen ton kindynon— line 12). The language of the speech, then, indicates that the success of the enterprise was quite probable. Alcidas' refusal to act decisively and his disinclination to form projections thus become the more prominent. In the accompanying narrative, Thucydides uses expressions whose connotations make the Peloponnesians in general, and Alcidas in particular, seem faint-hearted, or at least unimaginative. The historian says that the Peloponnesian fle e t, which should have hastened to Mytilene, wasted time (endietripsan) and proceeded at leisure (scholaioi). ^ In the narrative subsequent to the speech of Teutiaplus (chapter 31), Thucydides makes i t clear that the leadership of Alcidas is ineffectual. Since the Spartan commander feared the risk of attacking Nfytilene, Ionian exiles and supporters from Lesbos ‘ urged him to capture either a city in Ionia or Aeolian Cyme, and thus to foment rebellion against the Athenians. Alcidas, however, detexmined to return to the Peloponnese as soon as possible (hot! tachista te Peloponneso palin prosmeixai). The strategy of Alcidas is thotougily menterpriaing. He should have acted decisively, pronpted fay a firm projection. Instead, the fear of risk outweighed all other considerations. I t Is precisely this fear which makes Alcidas represeitative of Sparta, and mokes his behavior consistent with the portrai t drawn of Sparta in contrast with Athens by die early speeches In the History. Tran the discussion thus far, it is fair to make three suonery observations. First, die Thucydidean concept of elpis does not anbrace phoboa aid tharsoe equally, as does die Platonic definition, but it inclines to die latter pole, so that elpis is usually asso ciated with and can, in fact, mean confident projection. Second, the form of elpis which characterizes the general sp irit of Sparta Is more with the ideas of asphaleia and heauchla than with tharsoe: consequently elpis in die Spartan context has a more limited and negative significance. Third, for the Athoiiois, elpis is associated with tolma and kinthnos. I t is work repeating, however, that the degree of rationality involved In projection may vary. The Corinthians allege that the Athenians exceed the bouids of good sense; the Athenians contend that, so far as they are concerned, there is a close connection between elpis and giome. ^ This con tention is reasserted, and the significance of elpis elaborated, in the speeches of Pericles, especially in the Fuieral Oration. It is to these speeches that attention oust now be directed. In his first speech,*® Pericles sets out in clear terms the specific elements of Athens' power in order to persuade his countrymen to reject the Spartan ultimatum. Sparta, he says, is a continental power, totally dependent upon her land for sustinence. For Athens, the resources of a vast maritime empire are available. Control of the sea and the revenues accruing from that control are the decisive factors. Because Sparta has an agricultural economy, she has had little maritime experience and will be unable to obtain the requisite practice of seaman* ship. Also, Sparta's dependence upon domestic agriculture will make invasion more ruinous to her than to Athens, whose power rests on her navy and on the tribute from her erpire. Conse quently, despite the probable invasion of Attica, the war must eventually turn in Athens' favor. These are but some of Pericles' reasons for expecting success folpida tou periesesthai) Whereas the first speech of Pericles is more concerned with an analysis of the practical bases of Athenian power, the Rmeral Oration attempts to describe that power in more general terms and to create an impression of the Athenian spirit. 18 It is - therefore not surprising to discover that in this speech elpis not only underlies Pericles' outlook, as was the case in the first speech, but is an explicit and vital part of his vision of Athens. Indeed, projection is one of the major themes of 55 the Funeral Oration, aa the sheer frequency of its appearance ray suggest; in addition to associated concepts, the word elpis It self appears five tines, more than In any single speech in the History.^ It nay be worthwhile to exanlne each of these passages to ascertain the proper place of elpis in the Peri clean conception of the Athenian character. The first two instances are contained within the sane paragraph, the problematic conclusion of 2.42: ruvSt 8 ) oSrt vkovrov n r rrji> /rt dirdkawu/ vportprjtrat iltakwtMh) otrt mvlat ikitlbi, i t kuv (ti Siatfuryitv aurrjp wkavrfynuv, ivaflokijv roD ficirofl 4iroii) (as opposed to d e e d s y 2^ are similarly regarded. It makes little sense, for exaaple, to say that Pericles held a disparaging view of "the future". The Athenian spirit, as its portrait emerges from the text, and especially from the speeches of Pericles 59 himself, is most passionately concerned about the future. Risk, innovation, boldness: these concepts are understandable only in terms of the future. It is the specific attitude which one takes toward the future that is decisive. In this passage, the deliber ate decision of the Athenian soldiers to sacrifice future prospects in exchange for a more desirable (potheinotoran) present vengeance becomes more admirable precisely because those future prospects have value. These brave men, both rich and poor alike, chose to forego valid personal considerations in favor of a higher, more cormunal good, and thus th eir heroism the more engages our sympathy and respect. The specific antithesis which includes elpis is accordingly to be understood as the balance of two "positive" terms. More over, the connotation of each word is important. To translate the clause, as does Jowett, "They resigned to hope the obscure chance of success", is to prejudice the interpretation, since both "resigned" and "obscure" have a pejorative tone which the Greek words aphanes and epitrepsantes do not necessarily share. The clause is really untranslatable because there are no neutral translations for these words; perhaps "uncertainty" and "turn over", respectively, are reasonable approximations. The contrast between elpidi and ergo here is essentially one between the future and the present, both of which are "positive" and rational. Pericles is saying that in this moment of crisis, the soldiers could hare an effect only on the present; they had to entrust the future to 60 elpis. In other words* they forecast a good although unseen future from their present effort. Hie statonent exalts their courage, not because hope la abandoned, but precisely because i t is retained in the face of dangerous uncertainty, ty translation of the entire passage is as follows: No one of these men so strongly valued the enjoyment of wealth as to be faint-hearted, nor did anyone delay the dreadful day In die hope, which the poor entertain, that he might yet escape his poverty and become rich; but. conceiving a longing for vengeance, against the foe more eonpelllng than these considerations, and at die same time regarding this as the most glorious of risks, they preferred, conscious of the risk, to take revenge upon the eneiy and to let these other things go. They com mitted to hope the izicertainty of success, but In the matter already clearly In view they thought it right to rely on themselves alone. And then the combat was upon than, they preferred to suffer rather than to survive by giving way. They fled the shame of Ul-repute but In the fight they stood th eir ground, and In the briefest moment of fortune, Indeed at the highest point of their glory rather than their terror, they passed away. The context of this hope requires further discussion. Eloia here does not refer to a specific projection but to an abstract idea. 26 xhe nature of this idea is suggested by Pericles at two places in the conclusion of the following paragraph: y*p KoxoirpayoCmr lu ath tpw dt/xi&oav roG pwv, oTf i&vlr oix Itrruf aya6ov, aXK' o!s r) ivairrta funf3oXij iv (>jv hi Kwiwrvfrai ko1 i f olt piXurra pryaXa ra hwftipovra, ijv n vrafatttriv. iXytuvripa yap avlpl yt $p6vt)pa iyofTi ij fttra row (iv r$] paXaKiaOijvai Koxwnx ii i jmt& fixipxjt xal collar ikn&os ip a yiyvoptrox ivafoSijnt Slvam . 61 • It is not the unfortunate men with no hope of blessing, who would with best reason be unsparing of their lives, but the prosperous, who, if they survive, are always in danger of a change for the worse, and whose situation would be most transformed by any reverse. To a man of spirit it is more painful to be oppressed like a weakling than in the consciousness of strength and cannon hopes to meet a death that comes unfelt. C2.43.S-6) In the first instance, the concept of elpis is clearly of positive value, for Pericles says that those who have no hope have little incentive, little motivation for courage. If one has nothing to lose, and no prospect of any benefit, one has nothing for which to fight. In the next sentence, the concept is seen to suggest a wider dimension—elpis is an asset which is shared. This statement alone is sufficient to disprove any unequivocal assertion that hope is a "negative" concept .27 The question remains as to what precisely is meant by koines elpidos. It cannot mean sharing the hope (expectation, projection) of surviving battle. In that case, the words which follow (hama gicnomenos anaisthetos thanatos) would make the sentiment pathetic, if not absurd. The tone is rather one of tragedy and grandeur. The soldiers adhered to , and drew support from, their koine elpis despite their iiraninent deaths; their exanple should inspire others to similar heroism. This elpis must in same sense be greater than death, since it enables men to meet th eir end with equanimity. Jowett, cautiously non* committal, renders koines elpidos as "common hopes". It seems that Crawley, though bolder, is closer to the mark when he 62 translates the expression as "patriotism". The point is that the soldiers willingly abandoned all consideration of their individual hopes in submission to a higher ideal—the welfare of Athens as a whole, or, what Theodor Birt has called Staatshoffnunp- -and that a ll Athenians should do likewise. This dimension of elpis is also adumbrated in Pericles' consolation to the bereaved, near the conclusion of the speech. He tells the parents of the deceased to take comfort in the hope of other children: Mf>rfpffr D %pi| AAAttP iraflev iXwffli, •It in ^Xixta r/Kremrtv m ttM a r tbCq rt yap t u p o v k Sptup Xtffljj ol imyiyroptpot nirur lanrrnu teal rfi m!\ti Ik rt roO fit/ iprjpourdat xai iurtfniXtCfy (wourw Some of you are of an age at which you may have other children, and that hope should make you bear your sorrow better: not only will the chil- ' dren who may hereafter be bom make you forget those you have lost, but the city w ill be a double gainer; she will not be left desolate, and she w ill be safer. (2.44.3) * Although the sentiment may ring strange and hollow to modem ears, it does display concern for the good both of the indi vidual and of the conuunity. It will be readily apparent that the relationship between koine elpis and gnome is m d e a r. Degrees of * intellectuality and reasonableness can be more easily assessed for specific projections than they can for the idea of projection in a commal sense. The larger understanding of elpis— projection of or trust in the common welfare of the polls--is therefore liable to be confused with the more irrational forms of elpis. Indeed, it was so confused, as Thucydides' narrative 63 of the plague well illustrates. Instead of enduring adversity "in the consciousness of strength and common hopes", as did the soldiers eulogized in the Rmeral Oration, the Athenians reacted to the plague either with despair or occasionally with presumption, both dangerous postures toward elpis. After a care fill account of the symptoms and progress of the disease, Thucydides suggests what he con siders to be the worst feature (deinotaton) of all*-the enervating despair (athmda) which gripped the people: tawfamw W rnurdr roO kokoS *} ri uimrt m afoSotro xifwuv (irpbs yhp t6 bv4\vumv tb6vt rpawoparn rfj yptipjj iroAAy fiaAAov irpoitvro tr$at avrovt ««l ®‘* Mist appalling was the despondency that seized upon anyone who felt himself sickening; for he instantly abandoned his mind to despair and, instead of holding out, was ntich more likely to throw away his chance of life. (2.51.4) At the other extreme were those who had survived the plague and who then entertained the foolish expectation of perpetual. inanity from disease: col ipaKopifwrd Ti M rmr H A up, cal avrol r$ * apaxprjpa mpt\aptl «al it rov frttra xP&w i\v(6ot rt • All men congratulated them, and they themselves, in the excess of their joy at the moment, had an idle fancy that they could never die there after of any other sickness. (2.51.6) In both cases there should have been a steady faith. In the foimer, it was eroded completely; in the latter it was unduly exaggerated. Simply stated, the plague damaged the Athenian social fabric not only by its physical ravages, but more importantly by its destruction of all balanced expectations. In his third speech,^ Pericles attempts to bolster the Athenians1 confidence. In doing so, he indicates the impor tance and general reliability of careful projections. He also deals further with the wider dimension of elpis which was suggested in the FUneral Oration and which the Athenians, in their distress caused by the plague, had unwisely distorted. Only the plague, he says, had he not anticipated .3® The implication is that in practical matters elpis is usually accurate when it is based on careful calculation. Elpis in the wider sense, that is, faith in the eventual success and furtherance of the group, is a bit more complex: * koJ rij* rdXfiav djri rfjr 6po(at n?x?t ? f m n t fc roO vvip When luck is even, daring is rendered more reliable by intelligence and the sense of superiority it gives; intelligence trusts less to hope, the strength of men who have no other resource, than to judgment based on facts, from which is derived sounder fore sight. (2.62.5) One must not abdicate one's power of logic (gnome) when the circumstances do not warrant such an extreme response. Only when no practical avenues remain for coping with distress should one take refuge in elpis without gnome. This passage must be understood in connection with Pericles' use of the expression toine elpis in the Funeral Oration. Pericles is not denigrating the intrinsic value of elpis. Ihe word hesson is strictly* used as a comparative and is not equivalent to ou.31 a generalized sense of projection and of tiust in the future does have strength (ischus), but that strength is properly summoned only when there is no alternative (en to aporo). At other times, action should be based on a rational assessment of existing resources.32 This analysis has shown that there are two facets in the Peridean understanding of elpis. First are specific projections, which for the Athenians are characterized by boldness and enthusiasm (tharsos. prothunta). The Athenians, and especially Pericles, assert that individual manifestations of elpis also are based on ^nome and draands. and are therefore generally reliable. Second is the concept of projection in a comrnmal 66 sense (koine elpis) which serves as the illic it basis for individual projections and from which strength can be derived when desperate circumstances make specific calculated projec tions impossible. The relation between these two aspects of elpis is a precarious one. It would be easy to ignore practical possibilities, or to believe in what is not possible, in the none of e lp is. Confidence in the polls is necessary to motivate projections on its behalf, but there is a danger that this intangible sense of canmon welfare may be used to ju stify projections which are not founded on gnome. There is therefore a tension and a delicate balance within this dual understanding of elpis. Several incidents in the History illustrate the serious repercussions which follow when the balance is in varying degrees disturbed. The underlying function and meaning of elp is. however, remain consistent throughout the History. In order to assess these propositions more closely, the next chapters trill aaaaidne two crucial portions of the History in which elpis figures prominently—the Mytilenaean Debate and the Melian Dialogue. N o te s h & .e . 21.68-71. «IT. Ehrenberg , "Polypragmosyne! A Study in Greek Politics" JIB 67 (1947), 47; F. Wasserman, "The Voice of Sparta in Thucydides", GJ S9 (1964), 29. *H. North, Sophrosyne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature (Ithaca, 1966), p*102: "One of the controversial qualities, belonging in some sense to both sides, is sophrosyne, but the word itself, as distinguished from the quality, is usually treated as Spartan and oligarchic See also A.G. Woodhead, Thucydides on the Nature of Power (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), pp. 43*45. ®F.M. Ooxnford, Thucydides f'ythistoricus (London, 1907), p.167. 6cf. Thucydides 4.55. ?644c9-d4. The text is that of John Burnet, Platonia Opera V (Oxford, 1907, 1975); the translation is that of T .J. Sawders, The Laws of Plato (Aylesbury, 1970), pp.72-74. In the famous judgment of Pericles, Thucydides uses remarkably sim ilar language; 67 68 iw6rt yov v cfta'Boiri rt avrvur irapit icaipbv CflprtffctpcovvrAt, ktymr KorinX^Ttnv ixi rb $of3u Whenever he saw them inopportunely elated and arrogant, he would by his speeches strike them with fear and alarm; and when they were un reasonably apprehensive, he would reanimate their confidence. (2.65.9) Cf. J. da Rcmilly, "I/optimlstne de Thucydide e t le juganoit de l'historien sur Pericles", REG 78 (1965), 567: ’Tericles agit comae le moderateur: il rappolle la crainte la ou on l'oublie, la confiance la ou elle manque: epi tophobelsthai cpi to tharsein. Get equilibre, cette position rigoureuse qui est celle du fleau de la balance, e'est le controle exerce par PericleS au nom du logos." ®E.B. England, The Laws of Plato (Manchester 1921), pp.254- 255. ®1.73-78 and 1.80-85, respectively. Wi.74.1 ^ In the preface to the speech, Ihucydides describes Archidamus as aner kai xunetoa dokon einai kai sophron. For F.M. Wasserman, 'Ihe Speeches of King Archidamus in Ihucydides", GJ 48 (1953), 195, this expression constitutes "highest praise" of Archidamus by Ihucydides. H.D. Westlake, Individuals in Thucydides (Cambridge, 6 9 1968), p. 123, Is none cautious, and rightly points out that dokon should not be overlooked; Thucydides Is speaking of die reputat i on of Archidamus. The historian does not discuss his own opinion about die xmesla of Archidanus. ^E.g.j 80.2; 84.1; 85.1. ^ F o r exsrple, one would like to know Thucydides' source of Information, since this speech was delivered at a private con ference. Perhaps Teutlaplus himself was the Informant. There are, of course, die larger questions of the historicity aid the method of conposltlon of die speeches. Thucydides introduces this speech with tade, instead of with toiade. Does this mean that the text of the speech of Teutlaplus is closer to the actual words of the speaker than Is die case with other speeches? I think that the answer lies in the brevity of the speech. The short speech of Sthenelaidas (1.86) is introduced in a similar fashion, with hode (See A.W. Gome, H istorical Conmentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 19563, I I , 291-293). Now i t Is unlikely th at Thucydides has recorded any speech verbatim. Father, It is probable that Thucydides arranged aid presented each speech in his own way or, more precisely, as he thought each speaker was likely to have done mder the clxcunstaices (1.22). While the content la therefore accurate, the form may not be. In a short speech containing only one or two major Ideas there is little question of arrangement, aid thus possibly little deviation of the Thucydidean form from the actual form. Thus the h lsto rlo i 70 has chosen to use tade Instead of tolade. This argunent, of course, presupposes that none of the cpocchea are free inventions of Thucydides. Cf. A.W. Gomne, Essays In Greek History and Literature (Oxford, 1937), pp.156-189. “ 3.29.1 “ Optimists do not think their optimism foolish. On this point see the discussion of the Mytllenaean Debate, pp.57-77. ^1.140-145. ^1,144.1. The injunction not to expand the empire during the « war, and not to take wilful risks, invites confusion. I think that any hypothesis based on this passage, e.g. as to whether Pericles would have supported or condemned the Sicilian expedition (cf. Gorme, Cornnentary, I, 462), must inevitably be affected by prejudice. The fu ll implication of hnma polemountes is unclear. Also, it is difficult to judge whether a risk is wilfol, for Pericles is certainly not opposed to taking risks; cf. 1.144.3. On the soundness of Peridean strategy, see G. Cawkwell, "Thucydides' Judgement of Periclean Strategy", YCS 24 (1975), 53-70. 182.3S-46. basic purpose of eulogy is to inspire hope despite adversity; so a priori, elpis is central to Pericles' message. ^Lowell Edmunds, Chance and Intelligence in Thucydides (Cambridge, Mass., 1975), pp.61-65. 2lIbid.Jp.64. 71 ^ C f. F.R. Adrados, "Pericles y la democracia de su epoca", Estudios Qasicos 35 (1962), 347. ^Edmunds, Chance and Intelligence,-p.65. ^Ibid^pp.Ztf^S. 25Ibid^p.65. * C f. the distinction in English between "hopes" and "hope". 22Cf. Christoph Schneider, Information und Absicht bei Thticydides (Gottingen, 1974), p.H2n. ^Theodor Birt^ Elpidos (Eine Studie zur Geschichte der gricchlschen Poesie) (Marburg, 1881), p .11. B lrt's general view la that Thucydides regarded the future as nothing other than as yet unexplained causality. Uhile his scientism is a bit extreme, Birt did assert that elpls could, especially In the policy of Pericles, approximate pronoia, ^2.60-64. M. Itaranond, "Ancient Imperialism: Contemporary justifications", HSCP 58-59 (1948), 109, believes that there is a 'tearked change of tone between the Rmeral Oration and the third speech, and that Pericles no longer appealed to Athenian culture but to the self-interest of the Athenians . . . ." Culture and self-interest are not incompatible, however. The change of tone between the two speeches does not signal a change of basic attitude; rather, each speech is appropriate to the context in which it was delivered. 72 3°2.64.1. 31cf. 1.1M.A. 32crawley's translation of en to aporo he ischus as "the prop of the desperate" Is therefore totally misleading. UEMmUKAEAN DEBATE In 427, as punlshnent far Insurrection, the assenfcly a t Athens voted to execute die entire male population of Mytilene and to enslave the women and children. On the following day, the Athenians repented the harshness of this decision and determined to recon sider it. In their debate of the issue, Cleon was unrelenting, while Diodotus urged moderation. What la lrportant to us la that Thucydides saw f i t to Include die subject of elpla In his presenta tion of that debate. The focus of ny discussion will be the famous passage about elpis and erSs (3.45), but the speech of Cleon must be examined f ir s t so that the reply of Diodotus can better be placed In perspective. 1 Thucydides1 Intent may then be more accurately gauged. dean appears as a demagogue who unscrupulously uses rhetoric to disguise the callousness of his proposal. Yet within his speech one can detect a conflict between two principles of action. It has sometimes been said that this conflict Is one between idealism and pragnatlsm.2 In this view, Ferlclean policy is based on the conviction of Athens' cultural superiority and on considerations of Justice. Clean's ecphasis upon expediency In his support of the motion to execute the Mytllenaaans, and Diodotus' similar approach to refute him, allegedly Indicate a decline in moral standards from the period of Pericles' leadership.^ I shall shortly 73 74 * treat this subject further; here It may sinply be observed that Pericles was as pragnatic as Cleon. The echoes of Pericles1 third speech which are found in that of Cleon suggest that the contrast does not concern the question of expediency. Pericles advanced intellectual arguments to Justify the Athenian empire vhereas Cleon takes die ecplre for granted and focuses on the necessity to rule with an unshakeable w ill (to to hupelloon). The guiding factor in Periclean policy was reason, but for Cleon the will is supreme. Cleon repeatedly asserts the superiority of discipline to reason, of strong' action to careful policy.* Cleon's unwarranted exalta tion of the will is at variance with the priorities followed by Pericles, in whose outlook reason and will were both necessary, but necessary In a definite hierarchy of reason over will. The echoes of Pericles in Cleon's speech support this view. Cleon maintains, for exanple, that his policy has been consistent (ho autns eind. te gnfimS); Pericles used almost those same words.5 . But whereas the hallmark of Periclean policy was xmesis. Cleon urges the Athenians to react to the Mytilenaeans with angry passion (orro).6 In his eyes, the crisis is a test of Athens' will. Accordingly, Cleon regards elois solely in terms of inpulse. Hie possible rational basis of projections is not even considered,- or at best it is contenptuously dismissed: ytvJptw* ti vpbt r i fUkXov Spatrtit *al ikvfoatmt paxpSnpa pi* »*t ikd a w rrjt fiovk^triut, vdktpov t/parro, ifutaur«r rou ilutafov rpoB tw w 75 Infeued with bolAieas for the future, they cherished hopes *diich, if less than their wishes, were greater then their power, and went to war, thinking that they should prefer might to right. (3.39.3) Mercy, he says, would only inflame the rebels' ambitions s till further; deliberate offenses should not be pardoned: ‘OCkow i u vpo6ta>ai iXiriba ovrt Aoyy irunijv ovrt ypt}. partp ivtjrrfv, u r (vyyi’iipijv ifiapuu' uvOpwums Xifyovrat. ujtotrrtt fdv yip oix I 6* iwt&avktvtrair (vyypmpop A* i OfUtt 4) rfi Ikwibi ivatptifitvoi Kw&wtvovtrt, xul oMfft v«* carayvotr iavroC jiijvtptitrtirOai r$ jTr(/3ouA . . . excited by hope, men risk their lives; and no one has ever ventured-on a perilous enterprise after passing * sentence of failure on himself. (3.45.1) Cleon viewed elpla entirely in terms of orge, with no element of gnome; Diodotus accepts his opponent's assinption to win his own argunent. A wise policy, he says, would not try to block or to destroy hope, but to charnel it. Subjects w ill always revolt, but they should be left some hope of deliverance: ‘Ofiicow XP1 oCt* toO fWarou rjf Gifttf it nrrYvtrarrar fiovMmurfiat oOr* aWAwiorw* *«t«. WT$rmi rote in n a trtv i t ovk In a t fimrypM>ai xal ori ir (ipQ\VTa.Ty rrjv ifiapriav «araAvaau 77 We ought not therefore to take a less prudent decision in reliance on the security that the penalty of death affords. Nor should we make rebels despair of repentance or think that they may not, in a moment, cancel their error.(3.46.1) The topical element in the debate, then, is paramount. The subject of the controversy is first and foremost the fate of the tytilenaeans. The form and content of the second speech is to a great extent determined by that of the first. There must be caution, therefore, in attempting to discern the sig nificance of any part of either speech for the History as a whole. The historian straightforwardly sets out the debate, but his own position on specific points is by no means readily apparent. Thucydides certainly disapproved of Cleon. This does not mean that he agreed with all the argunents advanced by Diodotus. There are undoubtedly flashes of Thucydidean • * thought, but these pass through the filter of the persona of Diodotus. The degree to which generalizations in the speech are those of Thucydides as well as of Diodotus can be assessed only with reference to other speeches and narrative passages. The generalizations in question are those contained in the purple passage of 3.45.5*7, in which Diodotus comments about elpis and eras: tj tv &rrir otcroi nfc toBpunttat Qvtrem 6ppupJvrjt *po0vp*t n wpafcu inorponjv rwa /x«u>V $ ***¥ Hope and desire axe never waiting; desire leads the way and hope follows, for men think out an enter prise In desire and hope suggests that fortune w ill supply die means o f i t s success. They do men the greatest harm; concealed In their minds, they pre vail over dangers that are plain to see. And fortine too does play a part and contributes no less en couragement; she often presents herself unexpectedly md leads men on into perils, however inadequate th e ir means—sta te s even more than individuals, be cause they are throwing for the highest stakes, freedom or empire, and because each man, when he has a whole people acting with him, magnifies his power out of all reason. In short, it is impossible and alnply absurd to suppose that when human nature Is under a strong irpulse toward some action, it con be restrained either by the force of laws or by any other deterrent. I think it just as possible for the modem reader as it may have been for the Athenians assocbled in 427 to be entranced by the brilliance of Diodotus’ rhetoric at least as recorded by Thucydides. On the literal level, the language appears to be quite analytical and theoretical, an inpresslen largely due to the Abundance of abstract words beginning with elpia itself and culminating with anthropela phusis. Yet despite the ostensible lntellectualism, Diodotus is really 79 appealing to the emotions of his audience. A closer inspection shows th a t the language is subtly m etaphorical, p o etically moving rather than philosophically convincing. Elpis and eros are more Q than abstractions here; they are personifications. Moreover, the enphasis upon their close connection creates the same mood, evokes the same emotional response as would a tale of reckless lovers. The sentence structure, I suggest, has been deliberately molded to this end. Of special note is the omission of the sub jects in the appositive description, quite granmatically proper since the referents are unambiguous (ho men hegounenos, he d* epheporaerie). The nature of the English language will force the translator to render these phrases as "the latter leading, the former following", but the Greek permits the additional dimension of gender, without the construction of a fanciful and distracting conceit. If one were to read in English, 'Desize and hope, h® leading, she following...", the attribution of gender would be objectionable and confusing. Because the suggestion in Greek is subtle and unobtrusive, it is emotionally effective. Perhaps there arises an image, however unarticulated, of Clytemnestra and Aegis thus, or Helen and Paris, or Medea and Jason. The reader is then inclined to agree with what Diodotus says, moved more by poetry than by reasoned argunentation. It is teqpting to interpret the persuasive eloquence of Diodotus as a reflection of Thucydides' own opinion. Indeed, Thucydides is not insensible of the fact that elpis can be wilful. as I have explained in a previous chapter. I have also shown* however* th a t Thucydides' use o f e lp is is more coqplex than the Q mere equation of elpis with illusory desire will allow. I believe that Thucydides did not agree with the analysis of elpis which he ascribes to Diodotus. In fact* he consistently iiiplies that the elpis of the tytilenaeans was based on gnome. A review of the narrative leading up to the debate will bear this out. According to Thucydides* the Mytilenaeans were perfectly aware of the hazards of rebellion. They knew that the revolt was premature* but* fearing exposure and consequent suppression* they felt corpelled nevertheless to undertake it (3.2). Theirs was not the doomed effort of powerless subjects. The Athenians themselves realized that Mytilene had considerable strength* for which very reason they were reluctant to believe the unwelcome news o f the re v o lt: ol t* ’ASijraloi 0? • • . hrtl of y t ifUrtpat iKv&it ru/it «ov «al itapafKwCwt fliA ri irumftrai l Same have already been ruined by the hopes which you inspired in them, for so entirely did they trust you that they took no precautions them selves. (1.69.5) The defeat of the Mytilcnaeans indicates not the foolishness of elpis, but the danger which exists when elpis does not receive full support. Thus far I have examined the formal exigencies of the tytilen&ean Debate and the evidence of the narrative (including the speech of the Mytilenaeans) preceding it. These factors show that the passage about elpis is not to be accepted ccrrpletely at face value, but that the concept Includes a wider range of Ideas. There are underlying Periclean echoes which provide a more reliable guide. Host important is what Diodotus says about the nature of the power of elpis. It is intangible and invisible, yet it is able to conquer any misgivings to which visible dangers may give rise .1** Moreover, the concept of koine elpis, which 84 was seen to be important in Pericles1 outlook (pp.61-66 above), has « analogue in the speech of Diodotus: aftoKiTrur yhp trrw 5rt mpunafitvT) *al U r&r ivofatffripuip KirJwnJcu' ru'A itpoAyti, *ai ovx r} . . . she often presents herself unexpectedly: and leads men on to perils, however inadequate their means--states even more than individuals, because they are throwing for the highest stakes, freedom or empire, and because each man, when he has a whole people acting with him. magnifies his power out of all reason.. (3.45.6)15 For Pericles, however, elpis was not alogistos, but was closely associated with reason. The special interest of 3.45.5-7 lies in Thucydides' implication that the assessment of elpis not only is difficult, but also may be relative. Courage exercised by the underdog w ill appear as temerity to the favorite. So must the defense made by the Athenians have seemed to the Persians. So must the tenacity of the Athenian soldiers coaraemorated by Pericles have seemed to the Peloponnesians. These manifestations of bravery, lauded respectively in the speech of the Athenians at Sparta and in the Funeral Oration, testify to the importance of elpis in prompting heroic behavior. The question of the rationality of specific projections became irrelevant in light of the requisite dedication to the concerns of the group. But now, In the speech of Diodotus, Thucydides begins to question the basis of koine elpis Itself. Staatshoffinung (to borrow the conve nient Orman word for this idea)*® is not In Itself an unassailable fortress wherein Individual citizens can take refuge and justify their particular misfortunes. This "polis-hope" oust not be slnply a vague sense of patriotism which Induces a false security, but nisst be ultimately rooted In sane power which can enable the polls to survive. In the case of the Mytllenaeans, Thucydides makes It clear that their Staatshoffnmg was viable. Their only serious mistake was to rely on the Peloponnesians, but even they were mere of the precariousness of such reliance. That error Is the catalyst for Thucydides' analysis. The Mytilenaeans acted with as much calculation as they oould, but nevertheless they failed. There was a struggle of projections, as it were, between the Mytilenaeans and the Athenians, a struggle about "the greatest matters" (peri ton megistdh). For the farmer, the object was « freedom (eleutherla) ; for the latter, rule over others* (alien archie). In other words, while elpis is generally a dynamic, motivational force, there may be a caiflict between the objects of elpis. In the Mytilenaean affair, one senses that the conflict between these two elpides may be Irreconcilable. That tension reaches its highest pitch in the Mellan Dialogue. At this Jmcture, I turn briefly to what may be called'the "moral question" about the History. This problem is relevant to the Mytilenaean Debate, to the Mellan Dialogue, to the relation between the two—indeed, to an understanding of the History itself* Briefly put, the issue is this: has Thucydides can- posed end arranged the History so as to suggest that, either through the excesses of power and ambition or because of the devastation and brutality of the war, Athens experienced a ■oral decline? The implications of an affirmative answer are far-ranging. The Athens o f the Funeral Oration then becomes the model compared with which all later portraits of Athens seem increasingly flawed. Mach can be made, for example, of the contrast between the emphasis upon expediency in the tytilenaean Debate and the "idealistic tones of the Funeral Oration" Similarly, the brutal treatment of the Melians in 416 supposedly shows that the morality of the Athenians deteriorated since 427,' when they reconsidered and reversed their harsh decision about Mytilene. Finally, the Sicilian expedition is then regarded as a more grandiose manifestation of the naked imperialism which destroyed Melos. This time, however, the aggressors themselves suffer a devastating defeat. It would seem then that the characterization of elpis in the Hytilenaean Debate reflects Thucydides1 own opinion, an opinion which the Athenians are made to state more bluntly in the Melian Dialogue, and which they themselves ignore, to their own destruc tion, in the Sicilian expedition. An exhaustive treatment of the "moral question" is obviously impossible in this context. I should, however, make clear my views on die issue, especially Insofar as It relates to the concept of projection. I believe that the question posed above is correctly answered In the negative. Thucydides did not, It seans to me, Intend to depict the moral decline of Athens. There are soce cogent reasons for this opinion. It has already been observed, for example, that considerations of expediency axe characteristic not only of post-Perlclean policy but of the Periclean era as well. The third speech of Pericles, with its frank recogiition of Athens as the "tyrant dty",*9 is undeniably a product of Bealoolitik. The manner in which Athens acquired her enpire, says the great nan, is irrelevant; what must be recognized is the danger of losing that empire. When measured by the tone of Pericles' third speech, the realism of Diodotus is certainly not a decline. Hie speech of the Athenians in Book 1, the speeches of Pericles, the speech of the MytHenaeans at Olycpla, the Hytllenaeai Debate, the Mellan Dialogue: a ll these contain similar elements of political realism. Differences between than can be explained by the period of the war aid the respective cir cumstances In which they were delivered. But surely the principles of political behavior axe ranarkably consistent. The basic premise of international relations is revealed in its baldest and most u ioonyrcndaing farm in the Mellan Dialogue: the strong rule where they can.and the weak yield where they raust.^O This is perfectly oocpatlble with the Athenians' justification of aspire in Book 1, with Pericles* warnings In his third speech, and with the observations of the tytiloiaeans about the nature 88 of alliances. As I have pointed out, the tytllenaeans were aware of their position. They, the weaker, yielded when they had to; they attcnpted revolt when the Athenians showed slgps of losing stren g th . Hach of the theory of moral decline, whatever form It may as mine, rests on a conparison of the respective fates of die MytUenaeons and of the Malians. After their original decision to execute the MytlUnaeans, the Athenians experienced a change of heart. This was in 427, then the war 'Vms still only in its fifth year".^ By 416, it is Inplied, the brutality of die war had paralyzed Athens' sense of decency and humaneness, and the slaughter at Melos was the result; This view may be attractive, but there are serious objections to it. The supposition that the war had had a more brutalizing effect by 416 than It did by 427 1s w arranted. Five years of conflict is a long time. From 431 to 427 the Athenians had suffered mmerous invasions and the ravages of plague. Moreover, the reprieve of the Mytilenaeans was approved in a very close vote; the22 Athenians' change of heart was not overwhelming. I t may be objected that in certain passages Thucydides clearly displays a concern for morality. The description of the stasis at Oorcyra is especially eloquent and lnpassloned. 23 I believe that this is reconcilable with, not opposed to, an appreciation of Thucydidean Machtpolitik. Thucydides' realism prevented him from criticizing Machtpolitik in terms of con ventional ethics because those ethics were not strictly applicable. At the same time—and here acne measure of subjective Interpreta tio n i s unavoidable—i t seems th a t Thucydides was troubled by the apparent clash between the two standards, between the inexorable Amanda o f uhusis and the more humane appeal o f nomos. tftiat creates the mood of tension In the History is not a slow moral decline as the war progressed but a sense of the unreliability of traditional values and the uncertain validity of traditional concepts, caused fay the onset of war itself. In the Periclean vision, elpis was regarded within the orbit of gn≠ projection was a generally accurate guide to soind policy. Despite gnome, however, war makes the outcome o f p o litic a l action more in calculable, as the Mytilenaean affair strongly bears out. It is true that elpis Is irrepressible, as Diodotus affirmed, but the narrative shows that the Mytllenaeana did proceed with careful calculation. Yet despite the fact that their elpis was rooted in gnome, they could not control the course of events. Thucydides seems to be suggesting that the violence aid vagaries of war can unravel the connection between elpis and gnome. S till more dis turbing Is the possibility that war can also disrupt the more findamental bond between elpis and soterla. as the next chapter on the Mellan Dialogue w ill investigate. Motes * 1*8 to whether and to what extent die portrait of Clean has been affected by the prejudices of die historian, see A.G. Woodhead, "Thucydides' Po rtra i t o f Cleon", hhemosyne 13 (1960), 289-317. A more cautious view i s expressed by B.X. Wet, "A Mote on Woodhead's 'Thucydides' Portrait of Clean* ", Acta Classics 5 (1962), 64-68. Vfet argues that Thucydides' manner of introducing Cleon is not tnique in the History and enphasizes that other ancient authors, notably Aristophanes, share die historian's view. ^Mascn Hannond, "Ancient Imperialism: C ontoporary Jus tifications", HSCP 58-59 (1948), 109. 3cf. Hans-Peter Stahl, Thukydidea: Die S telling dea Menachen im geschichtlichen Prozess (Munich, 1966), pp. 165-166. * *3.37.3-4. ^2.61.2j k a i eg5 men ho autos einri. k ai ouk existam ai. *3.38.1. 7A. Andrewes, 'The ttytilene Debate", Phoenix 16 (1962), 72: 'Diodotus had to respond with Clean's charges in mind and thus had to show that his advice was in Athens' self- interest". Cf. H.R. Imnerwahr, "Pathology of Power and the Speeches in Thucydides", The Speeches in Thucydides, ed. P. Stadter (Chapel H ill, 1973), p.29. 90 %LS. Radford, Personification and the Use of Abstract Subjects in the Attic Orators and Thucydides (Baltimore, 1901), p. 31. %ee above, pp.31-39; cf. A. Hackl, Die Elpis als negativer Qiarakterisierungsbegriff bel Plutarch und Thiicydides (Imsbruck, 1962), pp.1-5. 1(b .9 -lA . Ufi.g. 3.10.1; 3.6.1; 3.11.2; 3.12.1. In 3.12.1, moreover, the Mytilenaeans cleverly juxtapose the words asphsleia and tharsos. 123.13. l^cocparisons with 4.108.4, therefore, should not be stretched too far. Cf. W. Mueri, "Beitrag am Verstandnia des Thukydides", Museum Helvetlcun 4 (1947), 253. ^3.45; 2.42.4; 2.62.5. 15por Diodotus In this passage elpis. eros and tuche are a ll o f a piece, a l l expressions o f the idea o f Irra tio n a lity . T\iche Is singled out here so as not to disturb the image of elpis and eros as a couple. l^Iheodor B irt, Elpides (Marburg, 1881), p.92. ITjohn Finley, Thucydides (Canbridge, Mass., 1947), p. 177. lQtecording to Andrewes, Gome apparently inclined to the view that Thucydides did intend to show a moral decline in Athene. Andzewes himself offers a thorough and perceptive analysis of the problem; see Conmentary 4, 181-188. 192.63.2. 2°5.89. Zlfinley, Thucydides, p.175. 2*3.49.1. 233.82-84. THE KUAN DIALOGUE Among the thonatic pillars of Thucydides' History, the Meliai Dialogue holds a special place. It is unique in its form, cocplex In its structure, and controversial in its presentation of the politics of power. The Dialogue can be approached from many points of view, and no one analysis can exhaust it. This discussion will focus on the concept of elnls as a dramatic pivot within the argu ment of the debate. The Dialogue, and the Sicilian bocks tdiich follow it, reflect not only Thucydides' careful analysis, but U s powerful dramatic sense as well. Thucydides Mythicus seems to merge at least as clearly as Thucydides Hiatoricus.1 The dramatic aspect of the History is relevant to the Investigation of elpis. as the study thus far has suggested. This aspect Is particularly important in the Mellan Dialogue and in the Sicilian hooks; ny discussion of these portions of the History w ill there fore focus especially on the dramatic quality of Thucydides' work. It merits observation, first of all, that the Mellan affair closely follows Thucydides' narrative of die tortuous political maneuvering of Argos as she jockeyed for security In the years following the Peace of Nlcias, and is franed by details of Argive politics. Immediately preceding the Mellan account is a reference to Alcibiades' expedition to Argos In the same sinner of 416. His mission was to remove pro-Spartan sympathizers, thus ensuring the 9 3 94 « firmness of Argos' alllm ce with Athens.^ Moreover, just as the Dialogue is preceded by Athens* interference in Argive politics, so also Is it followed by a mention of Sparta's intended inter ference in Argive affairs. True to their character, the Spartans did not carry out their intentions once they discovered that the maintain passes were no longer inder the fim control of their Argive partisans. Even so, word of their approach created further stasis within the city. 3 Thucydides is too careful a craftsman not to have been delib erate in his choice of these details thlch frame his account of the Mellon Dialogue.^ We are therefore meant to understand the Dialogue not simply as an abstract debate between conflicting approaches to political behavior; it is also an exanple of the very real and critical choices which every Greek state was com pelled to make within a climate of shifting international allegiances and volatile domestic governance. The in itial exchange between the Athenian generals and the Council of the Melians deals with procedural issues. The Athenians charge that their appearance before the cowcil rather than before the people at large was a calculated move on the Malians' part. The small timber of participants therefore provides a form appropriate for dialogue rather than for extended mono logue. The Meliarts agree conpletely with the proposed structure of the discussion, but they imply that the outcome of the negotia tions has already been decided by the Athenians, and that the only options available w ill be war or slavery (5.86). 95 At this point the Athenians bring the main subject of the discussion into clear focus: A0. El roU w vnovoiat t& p ptXAAvTuv KoyurSptvoi 4 iXAo n frojitm 4 t&v vapSvntp kbI «!i' Apart mpl mmmptat (3ov\tv lffHA. Eb&f #iiv col fvyyinipi] iv r$ Kodftrr&rar M ftAXi «al Afyoprar xal doKowrat rpcVcffttat* 4 fc ir o to i m l wtpl trunjpu it ijbt vapttm , xal i5 Acfyor £ «p*MAt3r0«rparty, tl So««T,yiyvitrdu. Mel. "It is natural and excusable that moi in our position should resort to many argunenta and considerations. But we achdt that this conference has met to consider the question of our preservation; and therefore let the argunent proceed in the manner which you pro pose* if you think that best." (5.88) The Athenians proceed more firmly to align the idea of soteria with that of expediency, ^ citing the dictun that the strong rule there they can and the weak yield where they must (5.89). In reply* the Meliana try to narrow the gap between Jtatice and expediency by suggesting that men may act in their self-interest precisely by recognizing the claims of justice: MHA. *Hi fiiv 8!) vofilCoftiv yc, xpfatpov (dvayicr) yap, irci&S^ tyult o0rt ittCo-avri rtra uiftrXrjdrjuai* xal / *pAt vp& p.oix fjirtToii t o v t o , oatp xal Jnl piytarfi npuplq vfoXivrtt dv roir AAAait vapaitiypa Mel. "Hell* then* since you thus set aside justice and make expediency the subject of debate, In cur judgment it is certainly of advantage that you respect the cannon good, that to every man in peril fair treatment be accorded* and that any plea which he has urged, even if failing of the point a little* should help his cause. Your interest in this principle is quite as great as ours* since if you fall* you might incur the heaviest vengeance and be an exanple to mnkind." (5.90) The Melians here caution the Athenians not to destroy principles which sustain the cannon good (to koinon agathon) * since the Athenins too might someday need to invoke them. The passage Is dramatic* not only because i t foreshadows the disastrous end of the Sicilian expedition* but also because it echoes a 97 strikingly similar thane from Thucydides' description of stasis at Corcyra.6 In chapters 91-100, the two sides make th e ir e r is tic more specific. The Athenians dismiss concerns about the power of Sparta and tty to show that die dynamics of ecpire make it natural and expedient for the Malians to yield to the power of Athens. The Mellans again try as they can to bring the issue of expediency within the context of justice and fair play (5.96, 98), but to no avail. They finally use the Athenians' adnission of the danger posed fay unsubdued islanders and restless subjects as support for the logic of their own resistance: only cowards, they soy, would submit to slavery (5.99). The Athenians suggest that the Inhalnnce of power ronoves the issue of suhnission from the arena of honor to that of expediency. Again they dissociate the idea of soteria from intangible values such as justice, nobility, or honor: AO. 06k, tjit y t Ath. "Not if you deliberate with sound sense; you are In an unequal contest; not about your good character and avoiding dishonor: you must think of saving yourselves fay not resisting far superior farces." (5.101) In response, the Mellans openly and unequivocally assert their belief In the connection between soteria and elpis; Thucydides thereby deliberately enphasizes a conmon usage (see above, pp.21-28) to heighten the dramatic effect: MHA. ’AAA* iirurrdfuOa rA r&v mktpup l A 0. ’EAwlt AA nurStriry vapapvdiov ovra rovr pkv A«A vr/MOwCar ypupivavt a Art}, *av fikdyfrjt, ov xa&ftcp* roiir I* At two* tA vmpyov avappurrown (AArnxvor yap tftdvti) ip * n yiytni actual physical s tr e n g t h . 9 100 tttth the distinction between tangible and Intangible resources new so clearly made, the Mellans newer along similar lines. While a&rLtting the difficulty of victory In an inequal contest, they edbtly suggest that the Athenians' success also rests on both kinds of resources—in this case on good luck as well as on physical power (pros dmandn te ten huneteran kai ten tucHen 5.104). The Mellans protest their expectation both of divine good fortine, given their integrity, as well as of tangible support from the Spartans. Thus they counter the Athenians' charge of total reliance on intangible resources (kai ou pmtanaain houtos alogps thrasinometha). The Athenian rebuttal is uncompromising. On the issue of divine assistance, the Athenians argue that they are no less worthy recipients, since they are simply exercising their power according tovhat they perceive to be a fmdanental law of nature, namely, to rule wherever one can. They therefore deny the Meliais' charge of their wrong-doing. As for the Spartaia, the Athenians enumerate the hallmarks of the Lacedaemonian character to show that aid from the Pelopomese is most unlikely. Mich of the subsequent discussion deals with each side's assessment of the likelihood of Spartan lntervoition. The Mellans were of course wrong on this point, but their mention of Bras Idas is worthy of note, as it may help explain why the Mellans persisted in their misconception of general Spartan policy. If their experience led then to believe that Bras Idas was representative of Spartan leadership, their error was then the more inderstandable. ^ 101 What la more tantalizing, and perhaps non chilling, is that the Mellans do not take up the issue of divine assistance, a point ihich they had made such of earlier and %hlch the Athenians had refuted with their assertion of natural law. Whether the Mellans (and indeed Thucydides) fowd the Athenian rebuttal cogent on that score we cannot know; in their final reply (5.112.2), the Melians repeat their expectation of divine good fortune, but they make no further effort to justify that good fortune on logical grounds. But the unanswered Athenian assertion that the gods are lnpartlal before the natural law of dominance and sufanlssian helps to elevate the Malian Dialogue above the level of political theory to the realm of tragic drana, by justifying the Athenian claim within the context of divine sanction. The Athenians* animation reiterates their contcnpt for in tangible hopes in the face of poor actual resources, end they again Imply that true aSteria can be based only on the possession « of material strength. 2) on tpfoavrtt mpi trmrrfpiat flovkvovttv ottlr rerovry A "You to ld us th a t you would d elib era te on the safety of your city; but we remark that, in this long discussion, you have uttered not a word which would justify men in expecting deliverance. Your strongest grounds are hopes deferred; and what power you have, cccpared with that already arrayed against you, is too little to save you." (5.111.2) 102 The severance between elpis and soteria Is now ccnplete. The Mellans persist In their refusal to surrender—to acknit that . elpis and soteria are no longer connected—and the Athenians terminate the conference with one last biting denudation of the ixitenablllty of the Mellans' position: ' AAA* oZv \16v01 yt Jhri rovrmp tZv fiui'XiVfidrwp, u tf o u r iomtre, rh pip pihXorra ruv ipufUvuv (raif>i "Well, we must say, judging from the decision at which you have arrived, that you are the only men who find things to come plainer than what lies before their eyes: your wishes make you see the secrets of the future as present realities; you put your faith In the Lacedaemonians, in fortune and In your hopes; none have more than yofu at stake, and none w ill be more utterly ruined." (5.113) Despite the Inactivity of the Spartans, subsequent events proved that the Meliois1 resistance was not so irrational, even when measured by the criterion of actual material resources. Through the rest of the sinner and the following winter, the Mellans steadfastly rebuffed the Athenian siege and even made two successful atterpta against the Athenian lines. Melos fe ll because reinforcements from Athens were abetted by traitors « within the city. The Mellans' reliance on tuche and elpis for their soteria was In the event not so ixtreasonable. Those In tangible resources were ultimately bested both by stasia and by duvndLs. 103 The defeat of the Mytilenaeana had suggested that elpis, even in concert with Priotne. offers no certain success in the volatile climate of war. We have seen that, In the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides takes this issue one step further— not even the fundamental connection between elpis and soteria necessarily obtains any longer. The Mellans' appeal to Justice and their assertion of what they believed to be a prudent policy mattered little in the face of the Athenians' bald insistence that physical power was the only ju s tific a tio n fo r e lp is. Thus Thucydides presents the dilemma that reliance on elpis alone seems triable to ensure even basic survival; only power aeons to matter. The Athenians hold up dmamls as the sole valid growd of elpis: that exalted claim is itself put to the test in the Sicilian Expedition, to which we now turn. Notes Joti the historical background of the Dialogue and Malian foreign policy, see M.T. Volk, The Melian Dialogue in Thucydides; A Structural Analysis (Dias., Ohio State tftilv., 1970), pp.4-23. ^The mention of Aldblades just before the Melian accouit also reminds the reader that the Sicilian Expedition is soon to follow. ^For a synopsis of Argos' conplicated International relations and domestic turmoil from 421 to 404, see R.A. Tomlinson, Argos and the Argolid (Ithaca, 1972), pp. 117-125. Note that Athens' treatment of Melos parallels—and closely follows in Thucydides' narrative—Sparta's treatment of Hysiae (5.83.2). ^K. Erbse, "Argos tnd Melos lm fiiriften Buch des Thukydldes", Wjarzburger Jahrfaucher fiir die Altertimswissenschaft 1 (1975), 59-70. ^Volk, Dialogue, pp. 67-68: "Furthermore, it appears that the Athenian case based on expediency is not a hard-hearted merciless attack but a cuanon rhetorical azgunent." *>3.84.3. Cf. koine elpis in Pericles' BVneral Oration, 2.43.6. ^E.g., the speech of the Corinthians at Sparta, 1.69-70. ®W,R.M. Lanb, Clio Enthroned: A Study of Prose-Form In Thucydides (Cambridge, 1914), p.202: ". . . the Athenians 104 105 text, with their 'abundant resources', are enlivening their oun hopes as well as discrediting those of the Mellans." See also Volk, Dialogue, p. 113. effect, the Athenians axe asserting the primacy of phusis over nanoe. J.H. Finley, Jr., "Euripides and Thucydides", in Three Essays on Thucydides (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp.40-42. Ob the conflict between to dikaion and to xunpheron. see F. Solmsen, "Thucydides' Treatment of Words and Concepts", Hermes 99 (1971), 401-406. 1#Cf. 4.81.2. THE SICILIAN EXPEDITION Every'reader of the History inevitably feels a sense of tragedy in Thucydides* account of the Sicilian Expedition. Hie precise cause of this feeling is elusive, but certainly it centers around the fact that the projections of the Athenians, conceived with such great promise, ended so disastrously. The idea of elpis is therefore of critical irportance in appreciating Thucydides' presentation. In this chapter I propose chiefly to trace the appearance of the word in Books '6 aid 7. This exercise w ill show how the historian uses the concept to rein force the structure of the narrative. In a brief but perceptive article, Harry Avery has outlined Thucydides' use of elpis in the Sicilian narrative.1 The major point of Avery's treatment is that in Books 6 and 7 the hopes of the Syracusans rise as those of the Athenians fall. I believe this generalization is accurate, but it merits a more detailed study.2 The tone is set in the speech of Alcibiades --appropriately enough, since he is the instigator of the expedition.3 The attitude which Alcibiades displays toward elpis is consonant with the dynamic feature of the concept. His idea is that those who act with the most confidence and with the boldest projections 106 107 are Dost likely to succeed in their designs. This contention is the basis of his self-defense in the natter of his alleged ex travagant habits and especially his magnificent entries in the Olynpic Gaines. His performance at Olynpia, he says, restored confidence in Athens (or fear of her), whereas formerly the Athenians were thought to have been enervated by the war. This ■ode of thinking recurs in his assertion that never before have the Peloponnesians had such little hope of victory; thus the expedition is a timely one.* In short, Alcibiades appreciates the value of mcxnentun which elpis can create. The Athenians for the most part share the spirit manifested by Alcibiades. Thucydides' description of the preparations for the expedition reveals a mood of optimism, of daring and of confidence.5 Yet there is also a marked tone of foreboding, which I believe stems from Thucydides' concern for dramatic effect and not necessarily from any negative judgment about the merits of1 the enterprise itself. Three passages axe relevant in this regard. The first Is 6.24.3, which describes the effect of the proposal on the young and old: o l fpttt ivivtot mv v i 9t» imrAcftrat* toft fiiv ydp vptvflvTipoit in f mrairvyx^rojj/i’oit ty' & IrAfov r) ov 6 U' All alike were seized with a passion to sail. The older among them were convinced that they would achieve the conquest of Sicily; at any rate such an armament could su ffer no d isa ste r; the youth were longing to see with their awn eyes the marvels of a distant land and were confident of a safe retu rn . The key expressions here are eros enepese and euelpides ontcs sothcsesthai. It is a mistake to infer a note of sarcasm in the use of the word euelpides.6 The word was used previously in the speech of the Corinthians in Book 1 to denote an essential quality of the Athenian character, without pejorative connota tions. ? There is an unmistakeable sense of foreboding in the passage which is explicable on other grounds. First, the word eros reminds the reader of the speech of Diodotus, where eros assisted the aspect of recklessness and dangerous passion.8 Second, there is an element of hindsight which functions as a dramatic tool to increase the sense of tragic pathos. Everyone * knows that the expedition did fail, and Thucydides uses that knowledge in such a way that the reader looks for hints of the final disaster in the narrative. Yet tragic feeling is distinct from moral judgpent. That Thucydides described the expedition in terms of tragedy does not mean that he regarded the historical fact of the expedition as an expression of national hubris. or even as an inevitable military failure. Indeed, the tragic feeling may be present precisely for the opposite reasons: an endeavor which is 109 strategically sound ends in catastrophe through quirks of cir- anstances and infrequent but decisive errors of judgoent.9 This is an understanding of tragedy into which elpis-- euelpides in the present passage--fits very neatly. The point is that high hopes are a valuable possession, especially in the case of the Athenians, whose elpla was baaed an power. The note of tragedy is sounded not because elpis is negative, but precisely because it is positive, and because the reader knows that those projections, so grandly conceived, will have such an unfortunate issue. Thucydides creates the same mood in 6.30.2, where he describes the excited throng who gathered at the Piraeus: . {vyxarifiij 81 *al 6 &Aor Sfukat 4irat ur ctircu' 6 ii> rfj vdktt ical iirruv ical £4vav, •I flip rovr mfur/povr air&v fuacrroi irpow/fimmt, •1 flip iratpovr, ot K fvyytvcir, ol SI vttit, ical /ur* iAwfior r t ifM tivrtt ical ikotfavpfi&v, ra ftlv ur mjaviiTo, rovr S' <( wore fyourro,^ ipOofuuSfitvoi otrov vXavv i* tt/i cr^rr/par invr/XXoiro.. 110 Almost the entire population of Athens went down with them* citizens and strangers alike, the citizens were each sending off their own people-- friends, relatives or sons—and as they passed along they were full of hope and full of tears: hope of conquering Sicily, tears because they might never see them again, when they thought of the long and distant voyage on which they were sending them. Again the dramatic tension canes to the surface, tension between the fear of disaster and projections which reasonably should be expected to succeed. The use of hindsight to evoke a sense of tragedy occurs most powerfully in 6.31.6 mid In 6.32.1-2, In the magnificent description of the departure of the expedition. Thucydides has made careful moitlon of the religious preparations, of rites duly observed, of prayers aid libations. Moreover, the Athenians possessed the requisite power to succeed. In every way, therefore, their elpis was firmly based: ical i oriKot otX rdXpyt r t 0&p(3tt ml fyttot Xapvpdrtjrt irtpt. fMijror iyivtro y orpariatvpbt otr icrjjcrav irtttpfioXfj, Kai •Sn fU ym vt t"8 rj 2cdirAoi>r bvb t t j t aUttat ral 9 fm ’ tiXi Tf »J!ij poAAo* r$ u r i ddkwiratt vokifuf, ipSm ra rijt yijr vtp( The word anelpiatotera fits perfectly in this context. It can mean either "less hopeful" or "more hopeless" and it ia tenpting to discern in It a turning-point in the fortunes of the Athenians. The subsequent appearances of elpis in the narrative rein force the depression that the position of the Syracusans is gradually improving as that of the Athenians progressively deteriorates. In 7.21.2, Gylippus urges the Syracusans to engage the Athenians in a naval battle in the expectation of a notable success: The result was indeed outstanding: the Athenian fortress at Plcanyriun was captured. The entire Athenian fleet was there fore placed in severe jeopardy, since provisions could no longer be safely obtained.11 Encouraged by this success, the Syracusans accordingly expanded their projections. They sent ambassadors, both to the Peloponnese to request renewal of hostilities on the mainland, and to other cities in Sicily to obtain additional assistance in the prosecution of the war: McrA 6) rwro pavt r* ixjri/uroun SwJfxa ot Sv/xunftnot xal *Ay&$apxpv iit* avr&v IvpatJaiov ipycvra. xal avrm w fda p&p i t TltXoirivvfjtrov yXfro< vpivfitit iyowa oTrrtp ri rt a-tfdrtpa Qp&aovtrui on tv ikrln v tlc rl xal rip in i rdkffiop in paXXop ivorpvtvOn ytyi'toOai' The Syracusans next sent out twelve ships under the command of Agatharchus, a Syracusan. One of than went to. the Peloponnese conveying envoys who were to report their improved prospects ana to urge more strongly than ever the prosecution of the war in Hellas. (7.2S.1) 'Efffp^rav xal if r&t irdXctr vpi Hie Syracusans also sent to the cities in Sicily C orinthian, Ambraciot and Lacedaemonian ambas sadors announcing the taking o f Plemnyrium and explaining that in the sea flight they had been defeated not so much by the superior strength of the enemy as through their own disorder. 116 They were to show their great hopes of success and above all to ask for assistance both by land and sea . . . (7*25.9) No longer are the prospects of the Syracusans "not unlikely". The use and repetition of the direct expression en elpis in eisi stresses the fact that the Syracusans are gaining the upper hand. Finally, after the defeat of the Athenians in the engagement preceding the arrival of Demosthenes, the Syracusans had great confidence in their naval strength: ■al Tpovala rt ifufarJpvp t&p pav/ia\tup fan] rav. *al njv fAirAa i}6tj i\vphp ti\op ratt ftiv vaixrl xal rroAv KptCatrovt cu'cu, ” They raised trophies o f the two sea fig h ts and were now quite confident that they were actually far superior to the Athenians at sea. (7.41.4) • The apparently inevitable victory of the Syracusans, however, is suddenly placed in doubt by the timely arrival of Demosthenes1 expedition. Thucydides treats the subsequent events with superb s k ill. The new armament causes great amazement and consternation amg the Syracusans. Tension and suspense increase with the possibility than an Athenian disaster may yet be averted despite the major successes of the Syracusans. Thucydides recounts the great assault upon Epipolae, beginning with a methodical analysis of resources and strategies. The narrative builds in intensity 117 to the initial attempts against the countervail and. finally to the daring attack at night. 12 Chapter 44 ranks with the very best in the History as a Masterpiece of narrative expression. The utter confusion among the combatants, unable to distinguish friend from foe; the loud cries* now of hope* now of despair; the wavering fortunes of either side: it is here on the field of death* as it were* that the theme of hope is played out in its highest pitch* with each side Straining to tear elusive elpis from the lid of Pandora's jar. Even small details play their part. The mention o f the moonlight* fo r example* is sig n ific a n t. Not only does i t make more v iv id the image o f uncertain shadows in the night, but it also presages an impending event of which the reader is only too well aware--the moment when the moon itse lf w ill become a shadow* prompting Nicias1 fateful refusal to depart. Iamediately after their victory* the confidence of the Syracusans was again restored* and Gylippus conceived the hope of capturing the Athenian walls (en elpidi on kai ta teiche ton AtKehaioh h airesein b ia ^ 7.46). At th is point Demosthenes strongly urged the immediate departure of the Athenians in the conviction that their situation was hopeless: rwf rc yap bnxtiptipaxriv liipvv ov KaropOowrtt col rei/i vrpanwrat 4X0opAwvf Tp M®*7T id rc AXAa on dWAwiora avrotr iQaunra. 118 Qhe Athenian generals] saw that their attempts were all failing and that the soldiers were weary of remaining.. .And they felt that the situation was in every way hopeless* (7.47.1-2) Nicias, however, s till had some hope (elpidos t i ^ 7.48.2) that the resources of the enemy would be worse than their own, and he was adamantly opposed to withdrawal, especially after the lwiar eclipse. The paired speeches of Nicias and Gylippus preceding the final battle in the harbor of Syracuse point up aspects of elpis which have appeared elsewhere in the History and show how the advantage has shifted decisively to the Syracusan side. Nicias advises his troops not to be like inexperienced men who, once defeated, entertain apprehensions of similar failure: iSvfittP 6i m Xfih ofitt miffxrtp ol Amt/Kfranu t u p avOpuvup, <4 reft v/xfroic aywtri a^aA/trir Arccra irai'rdt rf/i* iX* ■fli ^/3ou SfuCav raTt £vp But we must not be fainthearted and behave like the merest novices, who after defeat in their first battles never cease to fear and expect that their disasters will be repeated. (7.61.2) Here is suggested the relationship between elpis, tharsos and phobos which appeared in Thucydides' judgement of Pericles and which Plato was later to formulate more explicitly in the Laws 119 (above, pp.47-48 ). The Idea la repeated in Gylippua' speech: iv ip tt ybp intibbv £ npov\tivko Aov- M n , nS y* vxt5Xotirov avruv rijt Softjt ia$tpi For when men are worsted at the point where they claim superiority, any vestige of self- respect is more completely lost than if they had never believed in themselves at all; as the downfall of their pride exceeded their expectation, their readiness to yield ex ceeds the strength they s t i l l coranand. (7.66.3) Moreover, Thucydides once again brings to the fore the question of whether or not projections are based on real power. Nicies' projections of victory are now based on trust in fortune, so completely has the Athenian position declined since the initial battle, when Nicias could rely on the power of Athens: 4 IlaWji fiiv vapaiviati, & Srlptt, rt iu xprjetat, 4 ndptaprv ini top avrbv dy£i>a; avn) yhp f) vapannn) Uaiwr/pa poi Aoxc? cu*ai Sipvot mpatrxiuf ij icaAfir Ac* xM rrttArfyoiptraisr6a>avsarparonibov, Svovybp'Apyiloi sal Mapru'qr *4 'Affrjvalot cal pt/nurSv ol np&rot itrptv, n r ov xf") roifii'Ac sal rwuvbf (vp/idxup vdvra ru>b 'pcytiAijv ri}p iAnCSa rijt pUqt ixfa>* 120 The very character of our force is, I think, better able to put courage into you than an eloquent speech and a weak army. We are Argives and Mantineans and Athenians and the best of the islanders; and must not the presence of so many brave men fighting to gether inspire every one of us with a good hope of victory . . .? (6.68.1-2) # dAV im t re viptart, iroAAuy >/8ij imkipmv tpurttpoi Arret, m! 8aoi rfiv firji/idxwy, fvorportvfyn'oi altC, fivtjrOijrt rut i» rolt mAl/iotr Trapakdywv, teal rd rijt n?xijt ted* fUt&p ikvfoavrtt orijvat ' You who are here from Athens already have experience of many wars; and you, allies, are always fighting at our side; remember the incalculable turns of war; let your hope be that fortune may yet come over to us . . . (7.61.3) Conversely, the hopes of the Syracusans as expressed by Gylippus are exuberant, since initial determination has been augmented by success and a consequent increase in actual power: 121 Iftt&p M rrf re irzupxov ~p6rtpov, Snrtp ml Avnrivrppont I n iv n t inrroXp^ffaptv, fitfiawTtpov vvi’, ml rqr Xonj. rtmt vpoffytytirrjpipr;t avrf, rA Kparltrrovt «i«uit tvirt Kpartrrove iriK^oaptv, diirXcurui 1k(5otoi> $ iXitCv rA t) *«XX& vpbt rAr izixtipi/trnt if fuyCtm} «X»lrfuytimjp ml rt/p wpoQvfitav vaptxtrau But with us the natural courage, which even in the days of our inexperience made us show such . daring, now has a firmer basis; and as it is supported by the belief that we are the strongest since we have overcome the strongest, the hopes of every one are redoubled. And in most enter prises the highest hopes infuse the greatest enthusiasm. (7.67.1) The reversal of hopes is made final by the utter defeat of the Athenians in their attenpt to break through the Syracusan naval blockade. It was now inpossible for the Athenians to escape (anelpiston sothesesthai) .13 The Athenians had under- * taken the expedition with power, confidence and enthusiasm, with the "greatest projection" (epi megiste elpidi^ 6.31.6); now their very survival, and even that of Athens herself, was in question; fatt'Av ovp ij* ov m ? b pivotr tup vpaypiruv, on ru'r n pavt AsoAuXfitoYff wirmt ixrxtipow ml m rl ptyaAqt iXviiot ml avrol ical if v£u* stvAwcvomr. 122 Their condition was dreadful in many ways; they were retreating after they had lost all their ships; and instead of the great success they had hoped for* they and their city were in danger; . . . (7.75.2) Hie pathos and tragic grandeur of the closing scenes of Book 7 need no description; they speak eloquently for themselves* and any attenpt to elaborate must fail to do them justice. The fin a l speech o f Nicias* however* must be mentioned* fo r e lp is appears there three times within a few lines: * Kal Jc rfivvapivruv, u 'A&rjvaToi xal (vppaxoi, iknfoa Xprj fx tcalroi iroAAi jito i t tnSfMtfM M itfnj/uu, iroAAd i l it Avffpuwovt lim a xal AvtvtyOova, Av(t uti fj (iiv ikttlt Spat dpa sal fjpat tUbt v$v rd rt AwA roD 0 Even now, Athenians and allies, we must s till hope} men have been delivered from even worse straits than ours . . . (7.77.1) Yet, throughout my life I have been assiduous in worshipping the gods and in just and blame less conduct to men. Therefore I am still bold in hope for the future; . . . (7.77.2-3) We too may now reasonably hope than heaven will be kinder to us, for pity rather then jealousy is what we now deserve from the gods. (7.77.4) Again, some basic themes appear: elpis as incentive to per severe in difficulties; the connection between elpis. tharsos and phobos; elpis is rooted in religious conviction. Noticeably lacking is the idea that elpis is based on material power, for the Athenians in Sicily are now utterly powerless. In the last analysis, Nicias' confidence in the rectitude of his life did him little good, yet Thucydides regards his personal qualities with admiration.1* It would be inaccurate and inadequate to equate the tragedy of the Sicilian expedition with the tragedy of Nicias; I believe, however, that Thucydides' treatment of Nicias epitomizes a basic tension found in Thucydides' use of elpis and in the History as a whole. The tension is that between what is and what should be, between the necessity to have power for survival and the benefits vtoich moral and spiritual * values can offer to the individual and to society. This philosophical tension is the thematic connection be tween the Melian Dialogue and the Sicilian Expedition. The failure of the expedition is tragic not in the sense that the Athenians paid for their hybris at Melos by the disaster in Sicily. Rather, it is tragic because the Athenians were defeated even though they possessed all the ingredients necessary for success. Their projections were founded on material power, a fact which 6.31.6 clearly impresses upon, the reader, and also on a religious faith, as Thucydides suggests in 6.32.1 in the careful description of the prayers and ceremonies prior to the departure, of the expedition. Yet in the end both hunan resources and appeals to the gods proved equally fruitless. The reader is left with a hatnting awareness of the basic hunan dilenma-of the nobility, magnitude, and yet ultimate futility of hunan aspirations. The gleaming libations poured out before the great armament, and the wretched prisoners in the quarries at Syracuse—the two images mirror fundamental hunan experiences which are distinct b u t, i t Beam, inseparable. Notes I'Themes in Thucydides' Account o£ the Sicilian Expedition", Hemes 101 (1973), 1-9. ^Avery, with high praise for Gomford, regards his own study as "overlapping slightly with Gomford's account but essentially carrying it on", (p.l) In fact, Avery's approach differs from Gomford’s. Gomford regarded elpis as an essentially negative force in the Greek attitude toward history; Avery reveals it siaply to be a dynamic force in Thucydides' account of the Sicilian expedition, free from negative associations with hubris. Avery does not place the concept of elpis within the context of the entire Thucydidean corpus; his purpose is sinply to trace its appearance in Books 6 and 7. 56,16-18. Thucydides states that Alcibiades was motivated largely by the projection that he would be responsible for the capture of Sicily and Carthage and so would gain both Tiches and fane (6.15.2). Thucydides' own expression of the magnitude of the endeavor and of the Athenians' ignorance of the size of Sicily has led many scholars to conclude that Alcibiades' pro* jection was indeed irrational. See, e.g., Renate Klaas, Macht und Recht be! Thukydldea (Dies. Tuebingen. 1959), p. 107; P. Huart, Le Vocabulaire de 1*analyse psychologique dans 1’oeuvre de 125 126 Ihucydide (Paris, 1968), pp. 142-143: Alcibiades* plans are "les espoirs les plus deraisonnables". But in fact the expedition nearly succeeeded; see, e,gv H.D. Westlake, "Nicias in Thucydides", 35 (1941), 61. *With difficult logic, Mortimer Chambers, 'Thucydides and Pericles", HSCP 62 (1957), 86> suggests that "the Sicilian War failed partly just because the Athenians were always euelpides". For a more impartial assessment, see Avery, "Themes", pp.1-2. ^Thucydides' use of paraskeue in Books 6 and 7 resembles his use of elpis. i.e ., the stronger the preparedness of either the Athenians or the Syracusans, the higher their hopes. The Athenians begin with lo fty expectations and a grand armament; in Book 7 it is the Syracusans whose ever stronger paraskeue parallels their rising hopes. See June Allison, Preparation in Thucydides (Diss. U. of Pittsburgh 1974), pp.77-83. ®It is worth noting that Euelpides is the name of a central character in Aristophanes' Birds, which, for all its caricature, was exhibited in 414, when "the Sicilian expedition was in the full tide of success and was apparently on the point of obtaining a successful issue". B.B. Regers, trans., Five Comedies of Aristophanes (New York, 1955), p.2. In itself, therefore, euelpides does not seem to be a pejorative characteristic. 71.70.3. 83.45.5. Cf. Plutarch, Pericles 20. ^Indeed, the tragic intensity would have dissolved into mere melodrama i f the expedition had no chance o f success. Melodrama is the drama of helpless disaster; tragedy is the drama of conscious choice. For a thorough analysis of this distinction, see R.B. Heilman, Tragedy and Melodrama (Seattle, 1968), p.79 and passim. *°Pros ta huparchonta implies that expectations of success in Sicily were based on actual strength. See Gomne, Conrocntary. vol.4, p.296. In other words, pros here means not "in contrast with", but "actually based on", as Jowett's translation inplies. On the adequacy of the Athenian armament, and especially of Alcibiades' plans, see e.g. Allison, Preparation, p. 130: "While Alcibiades may have been possessed by an excessive cr5s and overdaring, his actions in Sicily showed that he understood that the plan for the expedition could be expedited and that the paraskeue which he possessed was conmensurate with those plans. 1*7.24.3. The loss of the fort was, Thucydides says, "the greatest misfortune". 127.42-43. 1S7.71.7. **A.W.H. Adkins, "The arete of Nicias. Thucydides 7.86", GRBS 16 (1975), 379-392. Adkins maintains that Thucydides is not being ironic in attributing arete to Nicias, and further suggests that 128 perhaps Thucydides saw in the career of Nicias a fate "though not necessarily a political acunen --similar to his own. Cf. H.D. Westlake* Individuals in Thucydides (Cambridge, 196B) * p.34* for whom Nicias exhibited a "thoroughly unenterprising, almost feeble way of thinking of which Thucydides certainly disapproved". 4 CONCLUSION The purpose of this study has been to investigate the concept of elpis in Thucydides' History. The investigation has attopted to determine both the sense-content of elpis and the manner in which the concept appears as a thematic elenent in the History. The study began with an analysis of the syntactical structures in which elpis is predominantly used not only in Thucydides' work, but also in the plays of Euripides, to provide a contemporary linguistic backdrop for the discussion. Both authors exhibit similar patterns of usage and association of ideas, so far as elpis is concerned, although Thucydides is more analytical than Euripides, as might be expected from his subject matter. The syntax of elpis demonstrates its essential futurity, and the concept has a wide range of objects and attributes, from the thorougily rational to ' the b lin d ly emotional. A sa lie n t idea w ith whiChL.it i s most frequently * oonnected is that of soteria, and so the evaluation of the legitimacy of elpis In many contexts implies a stance regarding the reality or likelihood of soteria. The chapter on semantic problems reviewed the range of the sense-content of elpis in light of the question of translation, -No single translation will suffice to express all the facets of the concept, and hope, expectationfand others may a ll be appropriate in their turn. In many circunstances elpis may be best thought of as projection. Although this English ward has not generally been used 129 130 » to translate the Greek, It Is appropriate (apart fran textual require ments) , since it Implies a neutral judgnent cn the value of the enterprise in question. An rniolysis of key speeches in the early books of die History. •specially the speeches of Pericles, showed that elpis Is a hall mark of the Athenian character. The tra it Is always dynamic, and generally positive, especially When it is associated with the Athenians. The futurity of elpis In the Spartan character is generally more cautious than optimistic, and so even though the sometimes appears in conjunction with the Spartans, elpis is pri marily an Athenian characteristic. Moreover, in Pericles* vision, elpla appears to be not slnply a motivator or attribute of individuals, but also a shared faith In the connm destiny of Athens, which transcends individual hopes. The examination of the Mytilenaean Debate dealt more closely With the rationality of elpis. The speech of Dlodotus describes . the Irrepressible nature of elpis. but the circnnstances of die Mytilenaeans suggest that their expectations were not so far fetched as Dlodotus* speech would Indicate. Nevertheless, the fa ll of Mytilene shows that even reasoned expectations may be frustrated. That frustration then raises In die reader's mind die larger question that what 1s "reasonable" to the optimist may seem 'tareasonable" to observers. The reliability of elpis and the basis of soteria is therefore on open-ended issue. The discussion of the Mellon Dialogue focused precisely on this issue. Is there any fbuidatian of elpis. any soteria. which 131 la ultimately secure? the Malians proposed tfiat rational argmcnts they could, however misguided the event proved those argpnmts to be: support from Sparta, their own courage aid resources, appeals to justice, aid faith In divine assistance; but all these tAmim* proved fruitless. The Athenian position appears to emerge aqpzeme, that true soteria lies solely in the reoogpitlan of the dittos of physical power. Ewn sigterior material strength, however, proved ultimately to be an unreliable basis for success, as die discussion of the Sicilian books suggests. The elpis of the Athenians failed to save die expedition, tdiile die elpis of the Syracusans emerged victorious. In Ms narrative, Thucydides does not depict the Athoilan elpis vis-a-vis Sicily as strategically unsowd a t uillkely to succeed. Quite the contrary. The use of the word in Book 6 has an affinity to that of the speeches of Pericles. The prospect of the expedition was indeed hazardous, and the sense of danger is heightened by the hindsight of defeat. Thucydides is certainly critical of the danos. but talented leadership and adequate re sources were die crucial factors. The Athenians initially possessed both, but the recall and flight of Alcibiades, together with errors of judgnent ixt the Athenian coemsnd, led to defeat of the expedi tio n . In Book 7, Athenian e lp is becomes progressively more w w h iH g and desperate, while the elpis of the Syracusans y becomes more confident and reasonable. The defeat of the Slcllltn Expedition was tragic not because the enterprise was Ill-conceived, but because it began with such great promise and with such formidable resources. Shared hope in the cannon effort had aided Athens against the Persians and had helped her enpire grow; but In -the Sicilian crisis, despite the Athenians' vast military might and trust In divine assistance the old verities failed to save the day. This sense of loss, of ruined hopes which could have been realized, adds to> the haunting power of the History. Hie evidence adduced for this study serves really to rein force that scholars of Greek literature mast know Intuitively all along. Pessimism is often regarded as a hallmark of the Greek temper, and especially of Thucydides.^ But such facile categorization oust fail on serious reflection. If die vision of Thucydides were bleak and hopeless at its core, a reader • , would derive little edification foam the History. Indeed, pessimism could hardly have been a major influence in a man who, unjustly banished by the city he served so faithfully, nevertheless felt cancelled to continue to devote his life to ismartallze in prose her greatest crisis. A pessimist would hardly have bothered to lift pen to paper in so bitter an enterprise. However, to deny a ra d ic al pessimism in the H istory is not to overlook Thucydides1 acute awareness of pain and in justice. But Thucydides' account of the brutality of conflict la realistic and poi&iant rather than pessimistic or cynical. Thucydides' use of elpis highlights that realian, as this study has shown. Elpl3 is not exclusively an affective or ncn-raticnal word in the class of tuche and boulesis; it also belongs to the pxBy of words such as giane and logismos, vhich Thucydides uses to connote intellectuality. The fact that elpis appears variously as intellective or affective is a mark of Thucydides’ realism and of his awareness of the complexity of hunan behavior. The tension ihlch many readers sense in the History stems partly, no doubt, fran the unresolved relationship between elpis and soteria. Whatever the outcome of specific hopes, Is there an ultimate hope which is secure? Josef W afer's observations, written in another context, are apposite: There axe a thousand hopes that man can abandon and lose without thereby becoming absolutely "hopeless"; but there is a single hope, the hope for one thing, whose loss would signify that a person no longer had any hope whatsoever and was absolutely 'Vithout hope". The question is, what the object of this one hope is.2 The m finished s ta te o f the H istory prevents us from knowing whether Thucydides finally answered that question; but we do know from his pages that he asked It. And for our world as for his, sloply to affirm the possibility of hope is itself a message md a promise of fulfillment. N o te s *E.g. J.C. Ops te l ten, Sophocles and Greek Pessimism (Amsterdam, 1952), pp.24-41; and L. Edmunds, "Thucydides' Ethics as Reflected in the Description of Stasis (3.82-83)", HSCP 79 (1975), 73-92. The most eloquent proponent of the idea of Greek pessimism was Nietzsche In his Birth of Tragedy (1872) especially section 7: "With this chorus the profound Hellene, uniquely susceptible to the tenderest and deepest suffering, comforts himself, having looked boldly right into | the terrible destructiveness of so-called world history as | • | well as the cruelty of nature . . . Art saves him, and through art —life", (trans. W. Kaufmaim, New York 1967). But as Kaufmaim writes elsewhere of Aeschylus, In-his Tragedy and Philos ophy (New York, 1968), p.213 : "To call the poet who created i Cassandra an optimist would be grossly misleading; but to call the author of the Eunenides and Suppliants a pessimist : would be worse." 3josef Piefer, Hope and History, trans. R. and C. Winston j (Munich 1967, 1969), p.23. 134 Appendix AESCHYLUS, THUCYDIDES AND ELPIS The Image of the squalid quarries of Syracuse is powerful and evocative, and forces us again to consider F.M. Gomford's thesis. Tto what extent did Thucydides write a scientific historical analysis? To what extent did he coopose a narrative drama, molding his material to suit his purposes? For a ll his ouch-heralded empiricism, Thucydides must in some sense be regarded as a dramatic historian, if only because his chosen subject matter assumed an undeniably tragic cast. Analo gously, If an acoouit of the Second World War dispassionately rsoouited die horrors of Auschwitz or the infeny of Hiroshima, it would hardly be less "scientific" for the portrait. Indeed, human suffering and hunan ambition are as real as the political dzcunatances in which they occur. To fail to convey their impact is to fail in the ccemltment to historical accuracy. The dramatic quality of the History makes It not less but more scientific, in the radical sense of the word.* The important question then is to determine not whether Thucydides wrote a dramatic history but rather what form and memting that drama assunsd. Gomford believed that Aeschylean tragedy pnofouidly influenced the cast and temper of Thucydides' work. The accuracy of this basic insight no doubt accomts for 135 136 the synpathetic, albeit cautious, hearing which Ccmford's analysis la often accorded.2 Comford assured, however, that Thucydides' thonatic aid structural model was Aeschylus' Persians.^ This assinptlon led him to consider the hubris of Xerxes' Invasion as a paradigm of the Sicilian Expedition. With such a reference, it la not surprising that Gomford was Included to Interpret elpis in a negative light, as a seductive teoptress who leads men on to undertake wild schemes. My analysis thus fa r has shown th a t e lp is has a wider range of meaning and la a more positive concept in the History than Com ford alleged. What remains Is to show that die use of elpis In the History Is consistent with the Intellectual and literary heritage vhlch Thucydides acquired from Aeschylus. To do so it Is necessary to consider Thucydides' use of elpis In the light not of the Persians, hut rather of Aeschylus' masterpiece, the O restela. Granted the basic hypothesis that the plays of Aeschylus affected die shape and tenper of Thucydides' work, I t seems reason able that of die extent Aeschylean corpus the major Influence on Thucydides was die Orestela. First of all, in both die Orestela ■id the History, Athens herself figures as a prominent subject, as the enbodlment of a political Idea In action. The former work deals with the events surrounding die very establishment of Athenian polity, synbolized by the founding of the Areopagus with divine sanction. The latter work deals with events at the acme of Athenian power. The fact that Athena and Sparta were at the peak of 137 their resources moved Thucydides to regard the conflict as 'host worthy of mention". ^ Seoondly, both the dramatist and the historian display a profxxnd concern for the operation of historical causality. In the Orestela. Aeschylus uses the trilogy form to its fullest potential to reveal historical development within the plot. The trilogy ties together the central actions -of the three plays Into a clear sequence of cause and effect.^ The hubris of Aganenmon provokes Clyteonestra's crime, vhich prcnpts Orestes' revenge. The matricide in turn leads to Orestes' hamtlng by the Furies and ultimately to his vindication by Athena, the foundress of the Athenian Areopagus. Moreover, the sense of causality extends beyond the actual events in the trilogy, back to the nythologlcal antecedents of the plot. The audience's familiarity with the story of Thyestes could only serve to enphaslse the chain of events. That Thucydides shared Aeschylus' awareness of and emphasis on causality need hardly be contended.The narrative farm permitted him to state that emphasis In no uncertain terms. The Archaeology, die Paitakontaetla— pieces such as these enabled Thucydides to place the subject of his narrative within a definite historical perspective. The magnitude of the crisis of Athens In the Sicilian Expedition, like the crisis of Ares tea In the Banenldea. can be better appreciated because it is viewed within the context of decades and even of centuries. 136 More iaportantly, both the Orestela and the History give to the story of Athens a sense of timelessness. Although each focuses on a different historical period, both works convey the grandeur of the Athenian spirit with a power and eloquence which transcends specific political events. Indeed it is the universality of the portrait of Athens as a model of dynamic polity which helps make each work a "possession forever". Aeschylus and Thucydides display an intellectual kinship not only in their general portraits of the Athenian spirit but also in their respective expressions of the concept of elpis. I have shown the broad spectrin of ideas which elpis assumes in the History, as well as the intensity and dramatic irony created by the tension between the concept's positive and negative meanings. Not surprisingly, the idea of hope in the Orestela embraces a similarly wide range of connotations. In fact, a recurring theme throughout the trilogy is the yearning fo r a secure hope fo r the House o f Atreus. A pervasive theme in the Agamemnon, and indeed in the entire trilogy, is the intermingling of hope and fear which heightens the suspense of the drama. The fate of Troy and of the Greek host, the anxious waiting for the return of Agamemnon, the dramatic in te n sity which builds as Agamennan's fa te becomes imminent--the very content of the plot suggests the importance of elpis. even if Aeschylus had chosen not to use the word it self. In fact, elpis appears twelve times in the Agamrotion. 139 Its first three appearances are in connection with the great First Choral Ode. Hie context is appropriate enough, since there the poet first expounds on the theme of anxious yet hopeful perplexity within the inscrutable designs of Zeus.? In the Ode, the Chorus begins and ends its direct appeal to Clytemnestra with an expression of hope that she will heal their anxiety with news of the Argive fleet: 4 riV rori fijvKOKojpotv nktB n, ro r i 8*ite Cvcuuv ic i n f a b n c iXwic dpvvtt fpovrt 5* ArA^cre? OufiofOSpov Awnjc fo b * f. c8 8* «f n mSidi* «fr« wcmxfUrrj i&myyiXotcw iXnlctv BurjnoXtle, ttXlioifi OM ftypvjtr OlJSi Ciyiicijlj&OVQC. Be healer to this perplexity that grows now into darkness of thought, while again sweet hope shining from the flames of sorrow that eats my heart. (99-103) Is it some grace--or otherwise—that you have heard to make you sa c rific e a t messages of good hope? I should be glad to hear, but must not blame your silence. (261-263) 140 Clytemnestra responds directly and unequivocally: ntvcrjt Bi j(ipfia /Mt£ov JKm&oc n X v tv Jlptifiev yip ^ip^xacu/ ApytZot mSAu'. You shall know joy beyond a ll you ever hoped to hear. _ Hie men of Argos have taken Priam’s citadel. (266*267)° Clytemnestra resolves the initial note of expectation which the Watchman had sounded and which the Chorus had intensified. But at the same time her sinister intentions raise further anxious expectations about the return and fate of Agamemnon. The play's progression builds on this theme—of fulfilling elpis on one level while suggesting deeper and as yet unresolved expectations. The Herald's entrance speech firmly resolves the question that the Argives have won, but recreates anxiety by the story of the storm which scattered the returning fleet. The Herald enters with an expression of joy at his own return, and exits with trepidation for the fate of Menelaus: lb w« rp&iov oK o c Apytlac ySovic, Snrfrou « t<£iS' « lI* oSir n c itcrlc jjitou vtv temp * f trml (wvra m u fIM n o m , pyjytwatc d iic • A n * dtkovroc J(ava\t2cai ytvoc, iXwic rtc aJrox wpocSiftovc y fw wdint. 141 Soil of imr fathers, Argive earth I tread upon, In daylight of the tenth year I have come back to you. All ny hopes broke'but:one* and this I have at last. (503-505) If he is s till where the sun's gleam can track him down, alive and open-eyed, by blessed hand of God who willed that not yet should his seed be utterly gone, there is some hope that he will s till cane home again. (676-679) Elpis fulfilled and elpis unresolved—the alternation of "gracious news with foul" (648) deepens the dramatic suspense for the subsequent entrance o f Agamemon.9 The interchange between Agamemnon and Clytemnestra is a masterpiece of psychological subtlety. Clytemnestra hails Agamemnon as "land seen by sailors after all their hope was gone" (898). Again, her duplicity gives to e lp is an ominous double edge, as hope fulfilled yet mingled with anxiety. In the great temptation of the velvet carpet, Agamemnon recognizes the choice and challenge which he faces: i f m » a « c 8 i to*Syra tcdWtctw fjmlvtt* J/tol fUv oHSaftwe i m i fiJJov. JJym mar* ivSpa, fiif Btov, cifinv ifU. • • <1 «4rra S' tSc npaccotp* or,n ’Oapcijc iy w. 1A2 I n i m ortal, a man; I cannot tran p le upon these tinted splendors without fear thrown in my path* I t e l l you, as a man, not god, to reverence me. (923-925) If I could only act as such, my hope is good. (930) Persuaded by his wife, he treads the purple and enters the palace to meet his doom.10 At the onset of the crisis, the Chorus voices a plaintive cry of hope and fear confounded: riwrt ftot riff J ftn iiw c StCfxa wpocranfpiov mpttac Ttpaettinov mr&rat; fuamiroXtt 6* tbt/Acvcroc afucBnc doi&f, oiH' dwtnmJca* Satav ivcKplrttiV Svtipdrwv 94pcoc tim tBic I- £ njptvAc $l\o* 6p6vo*. 01} tA irS» txutv iXwi&oc ftXov Opdcot. cvAAygva ouTot fiardi- {u wp&cM im nc Why oust this persistent fear beat its wings so ceaselessly and so close against my mantle heart? Why this strain unwanted, unrepaid, thus prophetic? Nor can valor o f good hope seated near the chambered depth of the spirit cast it out as dreams of dark fancy: . • . (975-983) Hope is gone utterly, the sweet strength is far away. Surely this is not fantasy. Surely it is real, this whirl of drifts that spin the stricken heart. S till I pray; may all this expectation fade as vanity into unfulfillment, and not be. (992-1000) In th is moving passage the dram atist re sta te s a basic theme in the trilogy—the desire for peace, for a secure hope, in the house of Atreus. For Clytemnestra, the murder of Agamemnon reveals the real basis of her hope, her liaison with Aegisthus: ti ft* fifioo fUXa$po¥ JArrlc Ifiira m Iv r & wvp itrUu ifiijc AXy*e S x ,’ . . . the hope that walks my chambers is not traced w ith fear while yet Aegisthus makes the fire shine on my hearth, . . . (1434-1435) m For the Chorus, the vengeance of Orestes becomes their hope, despite the scoffing cynicism of Aegisthus: ’OpJcnjc i p d m v fiXiitti tfxioe, Amc &tvpo irptnptvti rv\t/i i/ifot* yivtj ra» roiVd* irayKparr,c of5’iyui tyovrac M p u e iXw&ac arovfUvovc. Ch.: Oh, can Orestes live, be somewhere in the sunlight still? Shall fate grown gracious ever bring him back again in strength o f hand to overwhelm these murderers? (1646-1648) Aeg.: Exiles feed on empty dreams o f hope. I know it. I was one. (1668) Thus, the Agamemnon ends as it began, on a note of unresolved expectations. The object of hope, however, has shifted from Agamemnon to Orestes as the longed-for savior of the house of Atreus. In the Qwephori, the theme of Orestes as the hope of the house of Atreus acquires sharper focus. Three different characters during the course of the Qwephori make explicit the connection between Orestes and elpis. The firs t and most obvious is Electra, whose mourning for Agamemnon makes it natural for her to rely on Orestes for retribution. Electra twice suggests that Orestes is her hope--first by implica tion, when she discovers the lock of Orestes' hair (196), and then directly when he has revealed himself and she implores him to act: IAS & fikrarov fUktyia itijtaa* wmrpic, Sattpvrie Jknlc cir/fiftanc «unjpfmrt 0 dearest, treasured darling of my father's house, hope'of the seed of our salvation . . . (235*236) Clearly the thematic function performed by Agamemnon in the first play of the trilogy, as hope of the house of Atreus, has devolved upon Orestes in the Choephori. The identification of Orestes with elpis is echoed by Qytemnestra, although of course the queen's coup has revealed her true perception of Orestes' role: m l tA* 'Opicrrp, ij* yap cv/?oiJAc«f «xajk, u K9fd[wv iktffpiou injAoJ noSa 90r S* A> SJ/iotcifiamurijc ttrpic ikwic fy , npoSoOca* fyypofa. Even Orestes nowl He was so w ell advised to keep his foot clear of this swamp of death. But now set down as traitor the hope that was our healer once and made us look for a bright revel in our house. (696-699) Finally, the nurse Cilissa also speaks of Orestes as "hope of the house" (772), so naturally, in fact, that Orestes elpis almost seems an epithetical expression. 1A6 Orestes ftilfills elpis on one level by avenging his father's murder, but in so doing he incites the Furies. In the first play of the trilogy, Agamemnon's return fulfilled a certain elpis but also opened the theme to wider and more ominous im plications. Similarly, Orestes, "hope of the house", is himself now in need of deliverance. The issue of a truly secure hope for the house of Atreus is finally resolved in the Einenides. Athena establishes the Areopagus to deliberate Orestes' case, and herself casts the deciding vote for his acquittal. The enduring hope for the house of Atreus— and for Athens—is therefore the power and patronage of Athena, and through her the social justice of the Areopagus.^ In brief, then, one theme in the Oresteia is the exploration of the basis of ultimate hope. Precisely in what or whom can the house of Atreus place its elpis? The progression of the trilogy suggests now one, now another response to the question. But whatever the answer, be it the supremacy of the tribal king (Agamemnon), the usurpation of the paramour (Aegisthus), or the vengeance of the legitimate heir (Orestes), the events of the narrative prove that no single individual can ultimately satisfy hope. Rather, hope finds its final fulfillment in the social order, upheld fay divine power, sanctioned by law and by reverence for the gods. It is here that the thematic nexus between Aeschylus and Thucydides emerges. Hope in the social order, embodied by Athena and the Areopagus, closely resembles Staatshoffnung, the 1A7 koine elpis which Thucydides' Pericles saw as the strength of Athens. For Aeschylus, whose Oresteia was presented scarcely two decades after the Athenian victory at Salami s and four years before isperlal Athens had the Delian treasury moved to Attica, the principle of Staatshoffnung must itself have been an unquestionable guarantee of strength, needing no further justification. Thucydides inherited this intellectual legacy from Aeschylus, but in the upheaval of the Peloponnesian War, the old vision, no doubt s till longed for, was somehow no longer enough. Neither the Athenians' koine elpis nor Nicias' piety sufficed to save the Sicilian expedition. In the end the gods could not, or would not, rescue the Athenians as Orestes had been rescued. In the final analysis, the pages of the History reveal a spirit less of pessimism than of disappointed confidence, steeled in the crucible of war and searching for a firmer ground o f hope. Notes ifo r a perceptive discussion of the relation between art and adence In the History, see A.W. Gdome, The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History (Berkeley, 1954), pp. 116-164. ?E .g., Gocme, Greek Attitude, p. 149: "I should be the last to give the inpression, wittingly, that Thucydides had some prearranged pattern in his mind; but there is some truth In the statement that the Athenian people are the tragic heroes of the drama of the Pelopamesian Wars, aa Thucydides under stood it . . . ." 3f.M. Comford, Thucydides Mvthistoricua (London, 1907), p.241. Oh the "dramatic" aspects of the History, see H.D.F. Kltto, Foies la (Berkeley, 1966), pp.257-354. Kitto maintains not that Thucydides wea directly influenced by Aeschylus, but that both men were products of a cannon Intellectual milieu, so that It is only natural to expect acme similarity in outlook aad approach in the works o f the two mm. *1.1.1. ^ttchacl Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama (Berkeley, 1976, pp.57-86. 148 **'For Thucydides also had to deal with a very precise crisis, which he wanted to follow from beginning to end, with a strong feeling of historical continuity. Yet Thucydides was also well aware that, seme times, far distant causes had to be considered and made it necessary to conment about the past . . . And I think we can trace in this particular disposition the same inner con tradiction that we found in Aeschylus between a limited subject matter and a wish to explain things by looking back to more and more remote causes. The same device has been used by both, at the cost of chronological continuity, because the past was equally important to both." J. deRomilly, Time in Greek Tragedy (Ithaca, 1968), pp.82-83. ?Fbr an explication of how the Parodos introduces the major themes and images of the trilogy, see Anne Lebeck, The Oresteia-- A Study in Language and Structure (Cambridge, Mass. 1971), pp.7-24. ®H.D.F. Kit to, Greek Tragedy (London, 1939), p.71: "Clyteranestra and the Oiorus play into each other's hands perfectly. To this chorus Clyteranestra cannot avow her purposes or her feelings before the deed is done, for no chorus sympathetic to her is possible, or if possible would be suitable. She has to keep up appearances." ®"The Herald increases our expectation by ushering in the King in a kingly way . . . (Kitto, Greek Tragedy, p.68) 150 l®Khoving the sacrilege involved, Agamemon nevertheless gives in. I agree with the straightforward explanation of Eduard Fraenkel, Aeschylus Agameimon (Oxford, 1950), vol.2, pp.441-442: "He is tired to the utmost, worn out by the unceasing struggle, overpowered by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." l^Ch the Ephialtic reforms of the Areopagus and their possible influence on Aeschylus, see Anthony J. Podlecki, The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Ann Arbor, 1966), pp.81*100. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adcock, F ., "Epitelchisros in the Archidamian War", CR 61 (1947), 2-7; Id .. Thucydides and His History (Cartridge, 1963). Adkins, A.W.H., "The arete of Nicias. Thucydides 7.86", GRBS 16 (1975), 379-392. Adrados, F.R., "Pericles y la denpcracla de su epoca", Estudios Clasicos 35 (1962), 333-403. Allison. J .. Preparation in Thucydides (Dlss., Univ. of Pittsburgh, 1974 ). ------Andreues, A., "The MytdLlene Debate", Phoenix 16 (1962), 64-85. Avery, H.C., "Themes in Thucydides' Accouit of the Sicilian Expedition", Hermes 101 (1973), 1-9. Be tant, E.-A., Lexicon Thucydideun (Hildesheim, 1843, 1961). Birt, T ., Elpldes (Elrie Studie zur Geschichte der griechischen Poesle) (Marburg, 188X7] Bolsacq, E ., Dictiomatre etvrnologique de la langue greogue, 4th ed. (Heidelberg, 1950). Cautaell, G., "Thucydides' Judgement of Periclean Strategy", YCS 24 (1975), 53-70. Charters, M., "Thucydides and Pericles", HSCP 62 (1957), 79-92. Cbchrane, C.N., Thucydides and the Science of History (Oxford, 1929). Coxnford, F.M., Thucydides M /thistoricus (London, 1907). Ecfcuids, L ., Chance and Intelligence In Thucydides (Cartridge, 1975). England, E.B., The Laws of Plato (Manchester, 1921). Ehreriberg, V., "Polypragnosyne. A Study in Greek Politics", JHS 67 (1947), 46-67. 151 152 Erbse, H., "Argos ind Melos In fiiiften Buch des Thukydldes", UJA 1 (1975), 59-70. Finley, J.H ., Three Essays on Thucydides (Canfcridge, Mass., 1967); Id .. ThucydI3I5~(CarbrliJge. Mass.. 1947). Fraenkel, E., Aeschylus Agansmon, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1950). Gagarin, M., Aeschylean Drama (Berkeley, 1976). Game, A.W., Essays In Greek History and Literature (Oxford, 1937); id,, "FourTaisages in Thucydides”, JHS 71 (1951), 70-80; id., ffie Creek Attitude to Poetry and History (Berkeley, 1954) ;T d ., H isto rical Conrnentary bn m icydides. 4 vols. (Oxford, 1956—T970). Hackl, A., Die Elpis als Charakterisienngsbegriff bei Plutarch rad ThukvdTdes (Innsbruck. 1 % 1 ) . Hunond, M., "Ancient Imperialism: Ccntanporary Justifications'', HSCP 58-59 (1948), 105-161. Heilman, R.B., Tragedy and Melodrama (Seattle, 1968). Huart, P., Gnome chez Aristophanes et ses contemporalnes (Paris, 1973); Id., Le vocabulaire de 1'analyse psychologique dans I 1 oeuvre de Tfiucy3Ide (Paris. 1955)7 Hotter, V., "The Conpositicn of Thucydides' History: A New Answer to the Prcblemf', Historia 26 (1977) 269-294; IHT, Thucydides the Artful Reporter (Toronto. 1973). Kagan, D., Tte Archidamian War (Ithaca, 1974). * * * Kaufinann, W., Tragedy and Hiilosophy (Hew York, 1968). K it to . H.D.F., Greek Tragedy (London, 1939); id ., Foies is (Berkeley, 1966). Klaas, R., Macht utd Recht bei Thukydides (Dissv Tuebingen, 1959). Lmb, W.R.M., Clio Enthroned (Cahridge, 1914). Ldieck, A.. The Oresteia—A Study in language and Structure (Carchridge, Hass., 1971). Lenardon, R. The Saga o f Thanistocles (London, 1979). 153 McGregor, M.F. , "The Genius o f A lcibiades". Phoenix 19 (1965). 27-43. ------Mueri, W., "Beitrag zun Versdndtnis des Thiicydides", MH 4 (1947), 253. — Nietzsche, F., Ihe Birth of Tragedy and the Case of Wacner, trans. W. Kaufinam^e^r?oac7^967r? ------— North, H., Sophrosvne: Self-Knowledge and Self-Beatraint hi Greek U t^S E el^thica: I955Y .------O pstelten, J .C ., Sophocles and Greek Pessimism (Amsterdam, 1952). P le fe r, J . , Hope and H istory, tran s. R. & C. Winston (Munich, 19671 1969)• Podledd., A .J., The Life of Thapjstocles (Montreal, 1975); id ., .The P olitical ItackgrouncT of Aeschylean Tragedy (Ann Arbor, 1966). * Postgate, J ., Review of F.M. Comford, Thucydides Mythistoricus 2 1 a907), 308-318. ------Radford, R.S., Personification and the Use of Abstract Subjects in the Attic Orators and Thucydides (Baltimore. l90i). Rogers, B.B., trans., -Five Comedies of Aristophanes (New York, 1955). deKondlly, J .. "L’optiurLsme de Thucydide et le jugement de l'historien sur Pericles’*, REG 78 (1965), 557-575; id ., Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism, trans. P. Thody (Oxford, 1953); id ., Time gTLfeeK Tragedy (Ithaca. 1968). Saunders, T, J ., The Laws of Plato (Aylesbury, 1970). Schneider, C., Information und Absicht bei Thucydides (Gottingen, 1974). Schrijen, J.J.A ., Elpis. De vorstelling van de hoop in de Griekse Literatuur tot Arxstoteles (Groningen. 1965). Solmsen, F ., 'ThtMydlden' Traatmenfc-rifWords.and’firncppt-rf1, Hermes 99 (1971), 401-406. Stadter, P ., ed., The Speeches in Thucydides (Chapel H ill, 1973). Stahl, H.-P. , Thukydides. Die Stellung des Menschen im geschichtlichen Prozess (Mnich, 1966). 154 Tkmllnscn, R.A., Argos and the Argolid (Ithaca, 1972). Volk, M.T., The Melian Dialogue In Thucydides: A Structural Analysis (Diss^ oSio State Univ., 1970). Mtlde, A., Indogermanische Bibllothek, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg, 1954). Waasertnan, F.M., "The Speeches of King Archidmus in Thucydides", GJ 48 (1953), 193-200. Westlake, H.D., Individuals in Thucydides (Canbridge, 1968); id . , "Niclas in >Ihucycfl!3eiTr,1S$ 35 (1941), 58-65. Wet, B.X., "A Note on Woodhead's 'Thucydides' Portra i t o f Cleon' " , Acta Classics 5 (1962), 64-68. Woodhead, A.G., Thucydides on the Nature of Power (Canbrldge, 1970): id .. ’'Thucydides'~Fortrait of Cleon'*. Nhemosyne 13 (1960),"789-317.