The Evolution of Hope in the Hellenistic Period

Introduction

In the Hellenistic period, philosophical concepts evolved significantly, reflecting the complexities of an era marked by political and cultural changes. One of the least explored concepts was that of hope (ἔλπις). This article examines how different philosophical schools, such as Epicureanism and Stoicism, approached hope, and also explores the transformation of this concept in Polybius and in the age of the Roman Empire.

Little philosophical interest in hope

In the last centuries before Christ, the main Hellenistic philosophies showed little interest in the concept of hope. Epicurus, for example, pointed the way to a happy life based on the individual’s relationship with inner time. He held that man should not expect anything certain from the future, which lies beyond his control, but neither should he believe that nothing will happen (Letter to Menoeceus 133). This balanced stance allows the individual to experience joy both in memories of the past and in expectations for the future (Diog. Laertius 10, 137, 4d; Epicurus, fragment 444 Usener = Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3, 33).

Although he adopted a more positive attitude toward hope, Epicurus warned against excessive concern for the future (fragments 242 Arrighetti; 397 Usener = Cicero, De Finibus 1, 18, 60). He preferred to seek a lasting joy rather than lean on empty hopes, rejecting the idea of a life beyond the grave and any divine intervention (Letter to Menoeceus 124-134; Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 27, 1105A; 31, 1107B). Nevertheless, Epicurus suggested that man could hope for a future in which his freedom would be decisive, without fearing the envy of the gods (Letter to Menoeceus 134; Philodemus, On Death 12/20; 36/9).

The Stoic stance

By contrast, Stoic philosophy showed a complete lack of interest in hope. Terms such as ἔλπις and its Latin equivalent spes appear only rarely in the ancient Stoic fragments. According to the Stoics, all events follow the order of divine reason, and the wise man must submit to providence, adapting himself to the flow of the cosmos (Zeno, fragment 211 [SVF 1, 51]). Happiness, for the Stoic, lies in accepting the present, without allowing future desires or fears to disturb his peace (SVF 3, 63-94; Van Menxel 143-146).

The transformation of hope in Polybius

Polybius uses the terms ἔλπις and ἔλπίζειν in a twofold sense, both for rational expectations and for confident expectations (Histories 15, 1, 12; 23, 15, 3; 4, 36, 8; 1, 30, 8). He associates hope with confidence, directing it toward material goods provided by the gods, rather than toward hope in a spiritual hereafter (Histories 38, 7, 9; 8, 1). There is no evidence that ἔλπις refers to a life after death in the funerary inscriptions of the period. On the contrary, it is used to express the desolation of the living and the frustrated hope of the dead (Greek Anthology 7, 184, 453, 497, 490, 376; Woschitz 179-182).

The age of the Roman Empire

With the advent of the Roman Empire, the understanding of hope underwent significant transformations. Plutarch presents a God who is active in the betterment of humanity, describing the future life as a divine service and as fellowship with the pure (De sera numinis vindicta 4-8; fragment 178f). He mentions the Elpistics, who saw in joyful hope the foundation of human life (Quaestiones convivales 4, 4, 3, 668E).

In the Latin world, the double meaning of spes and sperare (hope/confidence) became widely accepted: on the one hand, a neutral or negative expectation; on the other, a confident expectation of a future good, often in opposition to despair (desperatio) (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 4, 80; Inv. 2, 163).

Cicero and hope in the Roman context

Cicero defines spes as an “expectation of a future good” and explores the relationship between hope (spes) and fear (metus) (Tusculan Disputations 1, 24, 32, 44). He suggests that statesmen sacrifice themselves for the good of their country, moved by a great hope of immortality (Tusculan Disputations 1, 32). In his old age, Cicero contrasts the foolish hope of youth with the prudence that recognizes the uncertainty of the future and refuses to take illusions as certainties (Cato Maior 67-84).

A young man who believes he is assured of a long life hopes foolishly (insipienter sperat), for it makes no sense to take the uncertain as certain or the false as true. An old man, on the other hand, can no longer hope for a long life, but he has the satisfaction of seeing his expectation of life fulfilled (Cato Maior 68). This perspective does not imply hopelessness, but rather the idea that, in dying, man merely leaves the inn of this world to reach the definitive life (Cato Maior 84; cf. Tusculan Disputations 1, 51; 1, 117f).

Even if this thought were an error, Cicero declares that he could not give up this “happy error” (Cato Maior 85; cf. Tusculan Disputations 1, 11; 1, 24). However, when he treats the immortality of the soul, he does not use the terms spes (hope) or sperare (to hope), but rather cernere (to perceive), credere (to believe), and consolari (to console oneself) (Cato Maior 84f).

Recommended reading: Spe Salvi (Benedict XVI), the encyclical on Christian hope.

Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian Theology, Marian apparitions, and the Postgraduate Program in Mariology.

Conclusion

The Hellenistic period presents a multifaceted view of hope, ranging from Epicurean moderation to Stoic rejection and the transformation in Roman thought. Hope, although little valued by some philosophical schools, found new forms and meanings as it interacted with different cultural and religious contexts. This evolution reflects the complexity of human conceptions of the future, of happiness, and of the relationship with the divine even before the Incarnation of the Word.

The Locus Mariologicus Institute is the worldwide academic reference in Mariology. Discover our resources on Marian Theology, Marian apparitions, and the Postgraduate Program in Mariology.

To delve deeper into the theology of Marian hope, see the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater of Pope John Paul II.