Thucydides and the Role of History in Girard's Thesis -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:12:23 03/16/08 Sun
Author: Kiernan
Subject: Thucydides and the Role of History in Girard's Thesis

To return to the tale of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (Thucydides 6.53-59), Thucydides provides an interesting reading of the story. He tells us that it all proceeded from jealousy. According to him, both Hipparchos and Aristogeiton sought the love of Harmodios, a young man. Aristogeiton had earned Harmodios' love, but still felt threatened by the overtures which Hipparchos made to his lover. So the two of them plotted to kill Hipparchos and his brother, Hippias. Interestingly enough, Thucydides then informs us that public opinion is mistaken; Hipparchos was NOT the tyrant - his brother was. The lovers intended to kill both, but, in a moment of fear that their plot had been discovered, they rushed at Hipparchos in a side street and killed him. In the public mayhem that ensued, Harmodios was also killed.

Thucydides expresses great disgust at the "ignorance" of public opinion, that they would mythologize the murder of a tyrant's brother over a love affair. Yet, seen from the perspective of Girard's thesis, the response of the crowd makes perfect sense. They remember Hipparchos as the tyrant, because they remember a feeling of catharsis as the result of the communal mayhem. Yet such a justification is false; it is a false accusation. This appears to be a moment where a historian pulls back the veil of myth. This causes me to ask - does history regularly function this way in regards to myth?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]