Tucídides entre os Philosophes em tempos de Revolução



Baixar 183,77 Kb.
Página2/3
Encontro03.05.2017
Tamanho183,77 Kb.
1   2   3
(ápeiros70) em estreiteza de ação guerreira delimitada, de curto fôlego. Então, superioridade potencial de força bélica por Atenas, pois "ce sont les réserves (periousía) qui soutiennent (anécho) les guerres, plus que les contributions arrachées par force (biaioi eisphorai)"71. Atenas realiza excelência guerreira de caráter imperial porque dispende recursos materiais em seu empenho a poupar e preservar cidadãos, ao contrário de Esparta, que carente de bens e posses, antes dissipa contingente humano. Esparta, assim, configura modo de poderio arcaico, de similar estigma inferior de fraqueza (asthenés72) à que definia a dos aqueus confederados contra Tróia, a ter que coletar em ato dispersivo os recursos para sustentar o esforço de guerra, assim o inativando e delongando73: "l'insuffisance (spánis) de leurs resources financières (chréma) les paralysera (koluo), dès lors que les delays (diaméllo) employés à les procurer (porízo) créeront des atermoiements (scholé): à la guerre, l'occcasion n'attends pas"74.
Tramas de retórica argumentatiiva que Péricles reitera em termos similares em seu último discurso75, já então tempos adversos que vitimam gravemente Atenas por invasões espartanas a saquear suas terras mais peste que desola a cidade e abate seus combatentes. Não obstante tais adversidades, ainda então Péricles conclama os atenienses a resistirem, jamais cederem (eíko) em submissão (hypakouo), relembrando-lhes a razão que lhes impunha o imperativo (anagchaios) daquela guerra, tão mais valiosa pelo tirocínio porque Atenas almejava, na agonística contra o poderio espartano, assegurar vantagem (perigígnomai) em aceitando correr o risco (kinduneuo) do empreendimento guerreiro.

Pois, acresce a voz do orador (historiador)76, é quando confrontada por terríveis calamidades (xumphorais tais megistais) que se prova a grandeza maior de uma cidade (pólin megálen) por correspondente eticidade (ethos antípalos) magnânima por que primam seus cidadãos que não perdem a virtude então reclamada porque bem suportem (huphístemi) as adversidades. Assim, preservam a justa dignidade (axíosis) que distingue sua excelência, pois nem permitem que seu brilho seja eclipsado (aphanízo) porque eles o abatem amolecidos (malakía) nem ofuscado porque o excelsem assoberbados. Aqueles abdicam (elleípo) a reputação (dóxa) que já detêm (hypárcho), e estes, abusam (orégo) a audácia (thrasytes) que jamais alcançam (proséko). A moderação magnânima de devoção cívica que respeita a justa medida de espírito com que se enfrentam as adversidades particulares (tà ídia) pela salvação (sotería) do bem público (koinón) virtuosamente manifesta a grandiosidade de Atenas.

Tanto mais excelente tal disposição virtuosa de espírito magnânimo porque se resiste às adversidades e enfrenta as provações da guerra quão, respondendo pela grandiosidade de Atenas, mais ainda avantaja o poderio do império ensejando seu êxito77. Pois o que define e constitui este poderio ateniense não é o proveito das casas e terras da Ática cuja perda tanto desespera os atenienses, mas sim o exercício do domínio marítimo, irresistível, que não há força adversa, nem do Rei (persa) nem de qual outro povo, que detenha seu avanço. Pois, se o apego arraigado, visceral àquelas propriedades locais ocasiona a submissão ao inimigo extraviando ganhos exceentes, a preservação da liberdade por quem delas se desprende abre congênere conquista ampliada78.

A determinação do espírito imperial ateniense atende portanto, não à contenção das propriedades contra a privação da liberdade, mas sim, pelo contrário, à audácia da conquista daquelas pela preservação desta. No jogo do destino glorioso versus vergonhoso com que então Atenas se defronta, em vez do rebaixamento submisso, há que, pelo contrário, enfrentar o inimigo conjugando altivez própria com desprezo pelo adversário. Tal é o modo porque se firma segura superioridade e, por esta convicção, melhor se viabiliza exitosa audácia porque conformada pela razão inteligente que examinando as circunstâncias calcula o êxito79. No kairós guerreiro, assim advertido por Péricles, se decide o destino imperial de Atenas, passo porque ele culmina poderio em tirânico.



Pois o império, ao que avança a peroração de Péricles aos atenienses, é tirania, de que, se a aquisição aparenta injustiça aos que o sofrem, o abandono ocasiona perigos a quem o exerce80. Livrar-se das queixas daqueles, transfere os infortúnios e as perdas para Atenas. Desistir do império desonra os atenienses, pois é pelas provas penosas do exercício desse poder guerreiro em que firmam excelência que eles compartilham recompensas glorificantes: evitar aquelas se dá contra perder estas81.
Pela linguagem conceitual condizente com o imaginário de dignidade heróica, a palavra narrativa do historiador que dá voz ao orador (re)produz os desempenhos da arte retórica pericleana, por esse jogo discursivo personificando em Péricles a refiguração do heróico em tempos da guerra peloponésia. Instada pela competência persuasiva dessa arte induz-se a figuração mimética de uma correspondente honorabilidade cívica dos atenienses por paradoxal idealização, pois a representação da massa coletiva da cidadania é dada antes como o avesso do heróico. Pela ilusão do jogo retórico (pericleano) a narrativa historiográfica (tucididiana) opera a dialética que sintetiza o conflito dos interesses particulares contra o público porque se administra ideologicamente a contabilidade distributiva de respectivos ganhos contra perdas honoríficas.
Conta Plutarco em sua biografia de Péricles que, quando da disputa plenária entre o líder democrático e a facção aristocrática chefiada por Tucídides de Alópece em que este acusava os modos impróprios porque aquele dissipava os recursos da Liga de Delos em embelezar Atenas com monumentos grandiosos, Péricles persuadiu a decisão da assembléia popular a seu favor interpelando-a nestes termos: perguntou aos atenienses “se achava excessivos os gastos despendidos no programa edilício”? Como os atenienses lhe respondessem que sim, “imensamente”, a inteligência retórica de Péricles deu a razão por que revirou em acolhimento favorável a contrariedade por que descaía o desatino da voz popular, então proclamando: "corra essa despesa por minha conta e não pela vossa, e passarei a inscrever o meu nome nas dedicatórias”. Assim inflamou os (especiais, ou especiosos) brios da assembléia, que “a altas vozes lhe autorizou a servir-se dos dinheiros públicos no financiamento das obras, sem poupar nada”. Pelo que induz a ponderação do comentário plutarquiano aparentando indecisão quanto a definir quais fossem os móbiles do ato popular – “se por admirarem a magnanimidade de Péricles, se por lhe disputarem a glória das realizações” -, a história faria irônica justiça ao prestigiar quem merecia ser glorificado puramente pela virtuosidade de seu gesto. Pois, o nome que Péricles mesmo deixou de inscrever nos monumentos, as narrativas vindouras lhes apuseram, fixando-o na memória ao, por aqueles monumentos, celebrarem “a glória da Atenas ... de Péricles”. De modo que pela astúcia da memória histórica se recompensa a capciosidade da inteligência retórica pericleana, assim discriminando a (in)justiça das benesses da partilha das honrarias.

Similarmente ocorre com o jogo de retórica honorífica em ação naquela assembléia ateniense que decidiu a manutenção da guerra contra Esparta. A dialética dos ganhos particulares contra as perdas dos recursos públicos joga o benefício da parte do indivíduo, contra os prejuízos da parte do coletivo. Se a astúcia arquidâmica das invasões espartanas da Ática poupava do saque e devastação as propriedades rurais de Péricles, a astúcia da democracia pericleana iludia a projeção coletiva de sua glória negando-a justo em sua nomenclatura definidora com que despersonalizasse a tirania de Péricles pelo e no império de Atenas, astuciosamente (dis)simulando a dialética dos ganhos contra perdas de suas honrarias e idealização heroicizante



Figuração de Péricles (tucididano) heróico que conclama mimesis de sua heroicidade em ideal de cidadania heróica: projeção retórica de atributo individual de Péricles em o (dis)simulado em atenienses, a conjugar o heróico no coletivo enquanto idéia de comunidade e espírito público (koinón). Figuração, pois, de idéia de Atenas-pólis, pois a coletividade mesma, as massas, antes figuram o reverso do heróico com que em Péricles é personalizado.


1 Richard Henry Lee, Philip Livingstone e John Jay (Memoir, 1826: 383). Confira-se, entretanto, a discussão argumentada por Edwin Wolf (1965: 189-224) mais as identificações de autores dos memoranda por Moses Coit Tyler (1897, v. 1: 330)).

2 Confiram-se: Tyler (1897, v. 1: 330) e Force (American Archives, Fourth Series, volume 1, page 1497-1498); igualmente em Chatham (1860: 132). Confiram-se ainda: a resenha da Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee (1825) na The North American Review 22.51 (1826: 383) e Gummere (1933: 324; 1955: 77).

3 Levesque (1846: 6-7). Confira-se especialmente a análise de Nicole Loraux e Pierre Vidal-Naquet (Loraux e Naquet, 1982: 194).

4 Force, American Archives, Fourth Series, volume 1, p. 1417.

5 Hobbes (1651: 171-172).

6 Confiram-se os informes dados por Leo Strauss: “The manuscript in question is entitled ‘Essayes’ and was composed by W. Cavendish, who dedicated it to his father as ‘this dayes present’ … the ‘Essayes’ are the earlier and much shorter manuscript version of Horae subsecivae, anonymously published in 1620. As the ‘Essayes’ and the Horae subsecivae are based on some essays of Bacon’s which were not published before 1612, they must both have been composed between 1612 and 1620. Horae subsecivae was traditionally attributed to ‘Lord Chandos’ or to ‘Lordd Candish, after Earle of Devonshire’. This latter attribution is borne out by the discovery of the manuscript version signed by W. Cavendish, and the former may well be derived from a misreading of ‘Candish’ as ‘Chandos’ … Thus the (nominal or actual) author of the ‘Essayes’ and very probably also of the Horae subsecivae can be nobody else but W. Cavendish, afterwards 2nd Earl of Devonshire … There were personal connexions between Bacon and W. Cavendish … and between Bacon and Hobbes; these connexions help to explain the literary relation which exists between Bacon’s Essays and the Cavendish ‘Essayes’” (Strauss, 1973: p. xii-xiii, nota 1).

7 “The case would be different if a Chatsworth MS., not indeed belonging to the Hobbes papers, but, as far as I can judge, written in Hobbes’s hand, could be used as a source for Hobbes’s early thought. There is reason for assuming that if this manuscript is not the earliest writing of Hobbes himself, his was the decisive influence in its composition” (Strauss, 1973: xii). Confira-se: Saxonhouse (1981: 543-548; 1995: 4-5).

8 Reynolds e Hilton (1992 e 1994).

9 Considerem-se as ponderações sinuosas de Quentin Skinner: “But should the ascription be accepted? Despite the authority of computers in our culture, there remains grounds for doubt. As well as the questionable status of the statiscal methods employed … Nevertheless, it seems very probable that Hobbes at least had a considerable hand in these texts … There are, in short, some independent reasons for thinking it likely that the computer analysis is correct” (Skinner, 2000: 46). Confira-se igualmente: Clark (1999: 686).

10 Assim o assevera Richard Tuck: “... they have put Horae subsecivae, and indeed a wide range of Hobbes’s other works, through a sophisticated version of the word frequency calculation program which has often been used over the past couple of decades to suggest answers to contentious attributions. I think it would be fair to say that a modern version of such a program, using modern computer power, produces reasonably persuasive results … In this instance the statistical analysis is unequivocal, as far as such a thing can be said: the three discourses are by Hobbes” (Tuck, 2000: 99-100). Confira-se ainda: Huxley (2004: 409). Confiram-se ainda: Abosch (2006: 623); Butler (2006: 464).

11 Kraynak (1996: 814); Fortier (1997: 861-887)..

12 "Also, by comparing the style of an essay I know that I wrote at the age of twenty-seven with that of this book review, written at the age of forty-nine, I would have to conclude that I am not the author of this review, if I were to accept the editors' methodology" (Martinich 1997: 466).

13 A conexão entre as temáticas destes (supostos) textos inaugurais de Hobbes e sua tradução de Tucídides é particularmente objeto das análises de Todd Butler (2006: 465-487).

14 Confiram-se as indicações apontadas por: A.P. Martinich (1999: 45-46); McCrea (1991: 671-677)

15 Martinich (1999: 46); Schlatter 355.

16 “Henry Seile, o editor, registrou o livro no Stationers’ Register em 18 de março de 1628: isto é, 1629 no nosso estilo” (Skinner, 1999: 316).

17 “Right Honourable, I take confidence from your Lordship’s goodness in the very entrance of this Epistle, to profess, with simplicity and according to the faith I owe my master now in heaven, that is not unto yourself, but to your Lordship’s father that I dedicate this my labour, such as it is. For neither am I at liberty to make choice of one to whom I may present it as a voluntary oblation; being bound in duty to bring it as an account to him, by whose indulgence I had both the time and ammunition to perform it. Nor if such obligation were removed, know I any to whom I ought to dedicate it rather. For by the experience of many years I had the honour to serve him, I know this: There was not any, who more really, and less for glory’s sake favoured those that studied the liberal arts liberally, than my Lord your father did; nor in whose house a man should less need the university than in his” (Hobbes, 1975: 3).

18 “Though this translation have already past the censure of some, whose judgements I very much esteem: yet because there is something, I know not what, in the censure of a multitude, more terrible than any single judgement, how severe or exact soever, I have thought it discretion in all men, that have to do with so many, and to me, in my want of perfection, necessary, to bespeak your candour. Which that I may upon the better reason hope for, I am willing to acquaint you briefly, upon what grounds I undertook this work at first; and have since, by publishing it, put myself upon the hazard of your censure, with so small hope of glory as from a thing of this nature can be expected. For I know, that mere translations have in them this property: that they may much disgrace, if not well done; but if well, not much commend the doer” (Hobbes, 1975: 6).

19 Confira Reik, p. 37-38. Dividem-se os comentadores de Hobbes no que respeita às relações entre as concepções históricas firmadas por ele na tradução de Tucídides em fase humanista e sua posterior evolução científica nos tratados de Filosofia Política: uns argumentam nexos de interrelacionamento e interferência (Schlatter, 1975: xi e xix-xx; Zappen, 1983: 81; Johnston, 1986: xv-xx e 3-25; Rossini, 1990: 303-304; Biletzki, 2000: 64); outros, pelo contrário, de cisão e ruptura (Strauss, 1952 [1936]: 96-98; Ashcraft (1978: 39).

20 “For in history, actions of honour and dishonour do appear plainly and distinctly, which are which; but in the present age they are so disguised, that few there be, and those very careful, that be not grossly mistaken in them” (Hobbes, 1975: 4-5).

21 “For the principal and proper work of history being to instruct and enable men, by the knowledge of actions past, to bear themselves prudently in the present and providently towards the future: there is no extant any other (merely human) that does more naturally and fully perform it, than this of my author” (Hobbes, 1975: 6).

22 “There was not any, who more really, and less for glory’s sake favoured those that studied the liberal arts liberally, than my Lord your father did; nor in whose house a man should less need the university than in his. For his own study, it was bestowed, for the most part, in that kind of learning which best deserveth the pains and hours of great persons, history and civil knowledge: And directed to not the ostentation of his reading, but to the government of his life and the public good. For he read, so that the learning that he took in by study, by judgement he digested, and converted into wisdom and ability to benefit his country” (Hobbes, 1975: 3).

23 “To which he also applied himself with zeal, but such as took no fire either from faction or ambition. And as he was a most able man, for soundness of advice and clear expression of himself, in matters of difficulty and consequence, both in public and private: so also was he one whom no man was able either to draw or justle out of the straight path of justice. Of which virtue, I know not whether he deserved more by his severity in imposing it (as he did to his last breath) on himself, or by his magnanimity in not exacting it to himself from others. No man better discerned of men: and therefore was he constant in his friendships, because he regarded not the fortune nor adherence, but the men; with whom also he conversed with an openness of heart that had no other guard than his own integrity and that NIL CONSCIRE. To his equals he carried himself equally, and to his inferiors familiarly; but maintaining his respect fully, and only with the native splendour of his worth” (Hobbes-Schlatter, 1975: 3-4).

24 “And now, imitating in this civil worship the religious worship of the gentiles; who, when they dedicated any thing to their gods, brought and presented the same to their images: I bring and present this gift of mine, THE HISTORY OF THUCYDIDES, translated into English with such more diligence than elegance, to your Lordship; who are the image of your father, (for never was a man more exactly copied out than he in you), and who have in you the seeds of his virtues already springing up: humbly intreating your Lordship to esteem it amongst the goods that descend upon you, and in your due time to read it” (Hobbes, 1975: 4)

25 “I could recommend the author unto you, not impertinently, for that he had in his veins the blood of kings. But I choose rather to recommend him for his writings, as having in them profitable instruction for noblemen, and such as may come to have the managing of great and weighty actions. For I may confidently say, that notwithstanding the excellent both examples and precepts of heroic virtue you have at home, this book will confer not a little to your institution; especially when you come to the years to frame your life by your own observation” (Hobbes, 1975: 4).

26 “For his own study, it was bestowed, for the most part, in that kind of learning which best deserveth the pains and hours of great persons, history and civil knowledge: and directed not to the ostentation of his reading, but to the government of his life and the public good. For he read, so that the learning he took in by study, by judgment he digested, and converted into wisdom and ability to benefit his country: to which also he applied himself, in matters of difficulty and consequence, both in public and private: so also was he one whom no man was able either to draw or justle out of the straight path of justice” (Hobbes, 1975: 3-4).

27 Reik (1977: 38) lembra o dito de Cleland em The Institutions of a Young Noble Man: “history should be the chiefest study of a young Noble man, when he commeth to any perfection of speech and understanding”.

28 “It hath been noted by divers, that Homer in poesy, Aristotle in philosophy, Demosthenes in eloquence, and others of the ancients in other knowledge, do still maintain their primacy: none of them exceeded, some not approached, by any in these later ages.” (Hobbes, 1975: 6).

29 “And in the number of these is just ranked also our Thucydides; a workman no less perfect in his work, than any of the former; and in whom (I believe with many others) the faculty of writing history is at the highest” (Hobbes, 1975: 6).

30 A fórmula hobbesiana marca preciso contraponto à fórmula aristotélica que diz "o mito como alma da tagédia" (Poética VI.1450a: Aristotle, 1987: 38), estando assim em consonância com as formulações de Políbio (Histórias II.56.11-13: Polybius, 1954: 378-379) que opõem história e tragédia justo por verdade contra falso. Já La Popelinière, em seu tratado de 1593 (L'Histoire des Histoires: La Popelinière, 1989 tome I: 143), elabora justo esta contraposição que conceitua história por virtudes de "beauté du langage et vérité du narré" a assim contrapor Tucídides a Heródoto, desqualificando a história deste último por "corps sans ame" (confira-se: Murari Pires, Clio Tucidideana, texto inédito, Registro BN 534.287, 2011: 53).

31 "Now for his writings, two things are to be considered in them: truth and elocution For in truth consisteth the soul, and in elocution the body of history. The latter without the former, is but a picture of history; and the former without the latter, unapt to instruct" (Schlatter, 1975: 16; EW 8, 1843: xx).

32 "For the faith of this history, I shall have the less to say: in respect that no man hath ever yet called it into question. Nor indeed could any man justly doubt of the truth of that writer, in whom they had nothing at all to suspect of those things that could have caused him either voluntarily to lie, or ignorantly to deliver an untruth (Schlatter, 1975: 16-17; EW 8, 1943: xx).

33 "He overtasked not himself by undertaking an history of things done long before his time, and of which he was not able to inform himself. "He was a man that had as much means, in regard both of his dignity and wealth, to find the truth of what he relateth, as was needful for a man to have. He used as much diligence in search of the truth, (noting everything whilst it was fresh in memory, and laying out his wealth upon intelligence), as was possible for a man to use" (Schlatter, 1975: 17; EW 8, 1843: xx-xxi).

34 “For the principal and proper work of history being to instruct and enable men, by the knowledge of actions past, to bear themselves prudently in the present and providently towards the future: there is no extant any other (merely human) that doth more naturally and fully perform it, than this of my author” (Hobbes, 1975: 6).

35 “It is true, that there be many excellent and profitable histories written since: and in some of them there be inserted very wise discourses, both of manners and policy. But being discourses inserted, and not of the contexture of the narration, they indeed commend the knowledge of the writer, but not the history itself: the nature whereof is merely narrative” (Hobbes, 1975: 6-7)

36 “In others, there be subtle conjectures at the secret aims and inward cogitations of such as fall under their pen; which is also none of the least virtues in a history, where conjecture is thoroughly grounded, not forced to serve the purpose of the writer in adorning his style, or manifesting his subtlety in conjecturing. But these conjectures cannot often be certain, unless withal so evident, that the narration itself may be sufficient to suggest the same also to the reader” (Hobbes, 1975: 7).

37 “But Thucydides is one, who, though he never digress to read a lecture, moral or political, upon his own text, nor enter into men’s hearts further than the acts themselves evidently guide him: is yet accounted the most politic historiographer that ever writ” (Hobbes, 1975: 7).

38 “He filleth his narrations with that choice of matter, and ordereth them with that judgment, and with such perspicuity and efficacy expresseth himself, that, as Plutarch saith, he maketh his auditor a spectator” (Hobbes, 1975: 7).

39 “he maketh his auditor a spectator, for he setteth his reader in the assemblies of the people and in the senate, at their debating; in the streets, at their seditions; and in the field, at their battles” (Hobbes, 1975: 7). Confira-se Plutarco (


1   2   3


©livred.info 2017
enviar mensagem

    Página principal