Esposito,Michael Dissertation Persuasion in the Aeneid
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PERSUASION IN THE AENEID A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Michael Esposito December 2017 © 2017 Michael Esposito PERSUASION IN THE AENEID Michael Esposito, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 This dissertation is an analysis of how characters in the Aeneid acquire and use knowledge to manipulate their addressees, and of how the Vergilian narrator employs similar strategies to manipulate his reader. The first three chapters are readings of speeches and scenes informed by a focus on each character’s rhetorical goals and persuasive strategies. I concentrate particularly on passages in which characters invent, distort, and speak tendentiously in other ways. The final two chapters argue that the Vergilian narrator is misdirecting, because he uses untrue character speech to raise unfulfilled expectations, and that he is suppressive, because he leaves out much, and displaces the telling of much onto unreliable characters’ claims. In the first chapter I examine how the reader perceives what characters in the Aeneid know, how the characters come to know, and how they use what they know. In the second chapter I interpret the diplomatic exchanges between Ilioneus and Latinus and between Aeneas and Evander as rhetorical contests for advantage, informed by the chaotic military and political world that is Vergil’s Italy. In the third chapter I argue that the speech in the last four books shifts to disputing the responsibility for the outbreak of the war and the question of over what the war is being fought. In the fourth chapter I argue that the rhetorical strategies used by characters in the Aeneid to manipulate and persuade other characters are closely intertwined with the narrative strategies used by Vergil to misdirect the expectations of his readers. In the fifth chapter I suggest some broader effects on our understanding of the Aeneid that may follow from my readings of character speech and narrative technique in the first four chapters. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Michael Esposito was born in the Bronx, New York in 1986. He attended Fordham University, where he completed his B.A. in Classics and History in May 2008. In August 2009 he entered the Ph.D. program in Classics at Cornell University. In July 2017 he defended his doctoral dissertation at Cornell University. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mike Fontaine guided my work with the greatest patience. Without him I would never have finished. Hayden Pelliccia read my work with the greatest care. Without him my writing would be looser and my thought poorer. Fred Ahl changed the way I think about ancient literature and Latin poetry. To him I owe the inspiration for more of my thoughts than I can adequately record. I thank them all. I owe thanks to my other teachers too, especially Bruce McMenomy, for teaching me to love Latin, Pietro Pucci, for giving me some idea of how to read Homer, and Charles Brittain, for helping me think clearly and read carefully. To my parents I owe, in addition to everything else, what ability I have to think and write. To my wife I am indebted for years of patience. Finally I thank David, my son, who provided immeasurable inspiration to finish this project. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………..………………………………………iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………….………………………………….…iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………v-vi GENERAL INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………1 CHAPTER 1: TRACKING AND USING KNOWLEDGE IN THE AENEID…………….……36 Introduction………..………..………..………..………..………..………..……………..36 1.1 An Asymmetry of Knowledge: Ilioneus and Dido………..………..………..……….37 1.2 Reading the Balance of Knowledge: A Messenger Scene .…..….……..……………43 1.3 How Accounts are Spread: Vergil’s Tripartite Solution………..………..……….…..49 1.4 Prior Knowledge………..………..………..………..………..………..………..……72 1.5 Conclusion………..………..………..………..………..………..………..………….85 CHAPTER 2: DIPLOMATIC USE OF KNOWLEDGE IN ITALY………..………..………….89 Introduction………..………..………..………..………..………..………..………..……89 2.1 Wartime Diplomacy………..………..………..………..………..………..………….89 2.2 Status Italiae………..………..………..………..………..………..………..………..………96 2.3 First Model of Diplomatic Speech in Italy: Latinus and Ilioneus…..……..……..…106 2.4 Second Model of Diplomatic Speech in Italy: Aeneas and Evander………….……131 2.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….147 CHAPTER 3: RECAPITULATION AND THE UNRELIABLE SPEAKER………………….149 Introduction………..………..………..………..………..………..………..………..…..149 3.1 Latinus to Turnus……………………………………………………….……..……149 3.2 “Recapitulation” Defined……………………………………………………..…….154 3.3 Aeneas Recapitulates……………………………………………………………….157 3.4 Recapitulation in Councils: The Council on Olympus……………………………..160 3.5 Recapitulation in Councils: The Latin Council………………………………….…185 3.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….188 CHAPTER 4: MANIPULATING THE READER’S KNOWLEDGE…………………………191 Introduction………..………..………..………..………..………..………..……………191 4.1 Misdirection through Character Speech…………………………………………….192 4.2 Short-Term Misdirection.………………………………………………………..….197 4.3 Large-Scale Misdirection…...………………………………………………………201 4.4 Invitation to Retrospective Reevaluation…………………………………………...213 4.5 Unauthorized Speech Muddies Waters……………………………………………..219 4.6 Pluperfect Storytelling ..……………………………………………………………225 4.7 Prophecy Recalled and Recounted………………………………………………….234 4.8 Conclusion……….……………….……….……….……….……….…………. .…240 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………242 5.1 The Suppressive Narrator………..………..………..….….………………………. 242 5.2 Inviting and Resisting Response……………………………………………………255 iv 5.3 Interpenetration of Narrator, Reader, and Character………………………………..257 5.4 Characters Read Art: Other Misdirections in Carthage …………..…………..……263 5.5 Aeneas Narrates…………………………………………………………………….267 5.6 Characters Generate the Tradition’s Variants………………………………………268 5.7 Characters Read Tradition………………………………………………………….269 5.8 Characters Play Poet………………………………………………………………..273 5.9 Narrator Plays Character……………………………………………………………275 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………277 vi Persuasion in the Aeneid: General Introduction This dissertation is an analysis of how characters in the Aeneid acquire and use knowledge to manipulate their addressees, and of how the Vergilian narrator employs similar strategies to manipulate his reader. The first three chapters are readings of speeches and scenes informed by a focus on each character’s rhetorical goals and persuasive strategies. I concentrate particularly on passages in which characters invent, distort, and speak tendentiously in other ways. The final two chapters argue that the Vergilian narrator is misdirecting, because he uses untrue character speech to raise unfulfilled expectations, and that he is suppressive, because he leaves out much, and displaces the telling of much onto unreliable characters’ claims. I. Preliminary Questions In this introduction I consider three preliminary questions. (1) How does ancient epic treat the question of how characters acquire the knowledge they evince in speeches? (2) What is “authorized” narrative? (3) How are we to understand a contradiction between a character’s speech and authorized narrative? I conclude with an outline of this thesis and a brief framing of the place of each chapter’s arguments in scholarship. I.1 The Plausibility of Character Knowledge My argument that Vergil takes great care over the question of how characters acquire the knowledge evinced in their speeches invites an assessment of the Homeric and epic convention for dealing with such questions.1 Bassett lists passages in the Iliad in which the knowledge 1 For my use of “knowledge” see below (II.1.2). !1 displayed by a character in speech is not, and should not be, “rationally” explained.2 How, for example, does Diomedes know Dolon’s name (Il.10.447)?3 How does Achilles know not only Iphition’s father’s name, but even the landscape of his homeland (Il.20.389-92)?4 Bassett concludes that “[i]n matters of slight importance what the listener knows, because the poet has told him in the preceding narrative, the character may be assumed to know.”5 We readers know who Dolon is; Diomedes therefore knows. We have just been told about Iphition’s heritage and homeland (12.382-5); Achilles therefore knows about them too. Although this convention allowed the poet a great deal of leeway to create interesting battle taunts, knowledge that lacked plausible explanation was not a matter of complete unconcern to the ancient reader.6 Odysseus has to supply an awkward prop to explain how he knows of Hyperion’s colloquy with Zeus on Olympus: Calypso told him that Mercury had told her.7 In less strikingly problematic situations, when the anomalous knowledge does not concern events on Olympus, Homeric scholiasts do not fail to take note of many of the same verses listed by Bassett, and to provide an explanation based on rational or “realistic” principles (e.g., 2 Bassett 1938, 130-140. His examples are from the Iliad: 5.246 (how does Sthenelus know Pandarus?); 10.447 (how does Diomedes know Dolon’s name?); 11.450 (how does Odysseus know Socus?); 14.482 (how does Acamas know Promachus?); 14.472 (how does Ajax know Archelochus?); 17.23-8 (how does Menelaus know Euphorbus?); 13.374-6 (how does Idomeneus know Othryoneus?); 20.389-92 (how does Achilles know Iphition?); 1.380 (how does Achilles know that Chryses has prayed to Apollo?); 16.558 (how does Patroclus know that Sarpedon made the first successful attack on the Greek wall?); 16.543 (how does