0

Surely hope being left in Pandora's Box means that there is no true hope in the world?

I just came across a quote from Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius that states "Delusive Hope, however, whom Prometheus had also shut in the box, discouraged them by her lies from general suicide." (Quoting Graves, the Greek Myths, where he lists this quote at ii.1249, although I'm still trying to run down the original.)

My feeling is that this particular question is really about the false nature of hope, which the Scholiast confirms. Thus I think this is a distinct and useful question.

| |
  • @C.M.Weimer let me know your thoughts. – DukeZhou Apr 3 '17 at 1:49
  • Graves cites himself. Also be aware that Graves always has been thoroughly questioned. Here is some book that show how inaccurate he is: jstor.org/stable/704652?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. And that is far from being the only review. Note that I am not "biased" against Robert Graves, barely did I read him. I am just reporting the opinion of several scholars/thesis I came across. – Gibet Apr 4 '17 at 7:19
  • @Gibet Graves is definitely inaccurate, but I doubt he'd make up a quote altogether. DukeZhou: I can't see how the newer question is about the false nature of hope. To my eyes, it reads the opposite, "with hope shut up, no "true hope" (= good hope) exists." Ergo, hope = good. What am I missing? – C. M. Weimer Apr 4 '17 at 23:20
  • @C.M.Weimer I'm definitely aware of issues with Graves. (Mostly it has to do with his Frazer-influenced commentary, which perhaps makes his work more valuable to creative artists and lit scholars than Classical scholars.) In regards to his references, I'm finding that some of the more obscure ones have different numbering than the current source texts, though I can usually find them eventually. These errors, however, tend to be rare in my experience, as I tend to utilize him heavily in running down sources. – DukeZhou Apr 5 '17 at 16:26
1

You are reading more into that question than is there to be read. Nothing about what is written in that question clearly establishes it as being meaningfully different than the one it is closed as a duplicate of. If there was some nuanced interpretation they were trying to get at, they sure didn't say so. If it hadn't been closed as a duplicate, it could just as well have been closed as unclear. It's not really even asking a question, per se. I don't think there is any sense in attempting to salvage it.

You've put far more work into answering that question than it deserved. If you think the answer you've written is of value in addressing a question distinct from the one it was closed as a duplicate of, I think you ought to post a new question, and self-answer.

| |
  • In my albeit brief experience here on stack mythology, it is clear the questioners don't always know the real question (i.e. the question underlying the literal question they are asking.) I appreciate your input, but ideally I'd like to avoid a self-answer (as I felt compelled to do with the metaphorical aspects of the Hesiod) in favor of promoting other people. What are your thoughts on transfiguring this question to be render it unique and useful, as opposed to opening a new question? – DukeZhou Apr 6 '17 at 17:54
  • @DukeZhou - I actually just added a line to my answer addressing that, just as you posted your comment. As the linked image indicates, I don't think that's the right idea. The question doesn't suffer some fixable formatting and clarity issues, it's garbage. We don't really know what they are trying to ask beyond that it's something about hope being retained in pandora's box, so without the asker coming back to actually ask a question, I don't think there is anything to be done for it. – femtoRgon Apr 6 '17 at 18:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .