Thucydides Roundtable, Book I: Fear, honor, and Ophelia

zen:

October 19th, 2016 at 6:40 pm

This is good philological sleuthing:
.
” The Attic translated as “interest” by Crawley and “profit” by Hobbes, óphelos, can be read in ways both interesting and profitable. Perseus translates óphelos as “help, aid, succor”. Perseus’ online Greek-English Lexicon (published in 1940) lists these possible meanings for óphelos: ”
.
It reminds me of the discussions that sometimes arise with On War from the awkward 19th C. original German. Words have meanings. Multiple meanings and meanings once common that have now been forgotten. Thank you for unearthing some for me

Lynn C. Rees:

October 19th, 2016 at 7:31 pm

Hi Zen,

Indeed. I’ve had fun in the past with the shades you can find in one prominent passage in On War. Clausewitz’s tortured phrasing has added pungency, if not meaning, in English when you keep the original German’s male pronoun:

War is a true Chameleon, not only because his nature changes in each of his specific incarnations, but also because, relative to his dominant tendencies, his overall form is an uncanny Trinity composed of:

 

• the violence of hatred and enmity (his original element), which should be considered a blind natural instinct,
• the play of probabilities and unforeseeable circumstances, which make him a free activity of the soul, and of
• the menial nature of a policy tool, making him fall prey to the naked intellect.

Charles Cameron:

October 19th, 2016 at 7:58 pm

Many thanks, Lynn.
.
One small note and associated question: Google’s “awe then and price hysteria and benefit” shows the current state of Google translator — “husteron” clearly means “after” or “later” in this context, but the translation “awe” for “déous” in both cases is intriguing. Does anyone have a reference for these two passages from Thucydides as direct verbal precursors to the more recent “shock and awe”? Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade don’t appear to mention Thucydides in introducing that concept in their 1996 brief, Shock And Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance.

Grurray:

October 19th, 2016 at 9:07 pm

‘Gain’, ‘after’, ‘later’ all suggest to me inventiveness and progress. During the Airing of the Grievances at the Spartan Assembly, the Corinthians said this about Athenians compared to Spartans:
.
“The Athenians are addicted to innovation, and their designs are characterized by swiftness alike in conception and execution; you have a genius for keeping what you have got, accompanied by a total want of invention, and when forced to act you never go far enough…
your ideal of fair dealing is based on the principle that if you do not injure others, you need not risk your own fortunes in preventing others from injuring you. Now you could scarcely have succeeded in such a policy even with a neighbor like yourselves; but in the present instance, as we have just shown, your habits are old-fashioned.”
.
The Corinthian apparently knew how to hit the Spartans where it hurts- imperial conquest is the future, and you hayseeds need to get with the times.
Pericles confirmed this view a little bit later when he disparaged the Spartans as farmers “more ready to serve in purpose than in purse.” The verdict was in early on in the book that the Athenians were seen by all parties as superior because of their wealth and technology, maybe even awe-inspiring.

David Ronfeldt:

October 19th, 2016 at 11:25 pm

Illuminating post, Lynn.

I didn’t and can’t sign up as a full participant, but I’d like to offer a comment: The fear-honor-profit theorem is about more than motivations. It is also about social solidarity, organization, and evolution. Moreover, it is a defensive warfare theorem, and reflects a natural progression in reasons for fighting.

When people sense a threat, they become fearful individually and collectively. So they look around for solidarity.

Their natural recourse is to the tribal form of organization — as a clan, band, gang, militia, unit, whatever. And a key motive that holds a tribal formation together is indeed honor (along with principles about respect, pride, and dignity). Warriors overcome fears and rally together for collective defense by fighting for honor, their own and that of their tribe.

The development of interest comes later, as leaders and organizations seek to determine their war aims and strategies. Interest in all its varieties — profit, position, etc. — is more the stuff of formal institutions than tribes.

The theorem can be reversed in the case of imperial predators who wage offensive wars. Their highest motivation may be interest. But since that rarely suffices to keep everybody in line, honor gets touted as a parallel motivation. But then it turns out that imperial expansion eventually generates new threats — thus fear arises as a key motivation anew.

That is what TIMN leads me to remark. Onward.

Neville Morley:

October 21st, 2016 at 12:17 pm

Thanks for this. I think it is really useful to stress the fact that Crawley’s Thucydides is only an interpretation of the original rather than ‘the real thing’; partly because his words get cited so often under the name of Thucydides, it’s easy to forget that this is just one possible version among many. For example, Warner’s Penguin Classics translation goes for ‘security’ rather than ‘fear’ at 1.76.2; clearly related, but different overtones. And it’s interesting how many translations change the order of the three terms in 1.76.2, which is honour, fear and self-interest/profit in the original, so that it matches 1.75.3.

One bit of pedantry: are you really suggesting that óphelos can mean something that is ‘interesting’, as opposed to ‘interest-bearing’? I don’t think that’s sustainable.