ClIAPIER 1WO

THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE

Although we have no specimens of fonnal treaties made during the Dark Ages or preceding Greek times, the less formal agreements contained in the Homeric epics provide us with useful examples of the typology of agreements prevalent during these earlier periods. The inter-ethnic agreements described by Homer reflect the earlier international treaties, while the more personal agreements made in the epics reflect the interpersonal relationships of the pre-Homeric aristocratic times. Both groups of agreements afford us a glimpse into the promise-giving practices of that earlier world, and suggest some of its social, political, economic, and military relationships. The oral nature of these agreements, remarked on at the end of the last chapter, indicates the very great importance of the spoken word in personal relations in the Heroic age. In the present chapter we shall analyze more closely some of the tenns employed in these agreements, which will help us understand more fully the implications of their tenninology as well as the culture which produced that tenninology. The first term we shall consider is philotes, which has a wide gamut of nuances in the field of human relationships and which of all tenns is probably the one most central to our subject. We shall then consider three other important terms and their interrelations with each other, viz., horkia, , and omnyein.

A. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PHILOTES Upbraided by his brother for his cowardly behavior in the , Paris decided to engage the fonnidable Menelaus in a single battle in the presence of the two rival armies. The major stipulations of this agreement were that the victor would carry Helen off to his own house along with her possessions, while the two annies would make a treaty of peace and friendship and would withdraw to their respective lands (fl. 3.67-73). Unfortunately, the duel turned out differently than expected, because the goddess intervened on Paris's behalf just as Menelaus was about to dispatch him. Thus Paris miraculously escaped death, while the friendship and peace originally anticipated in consequence of the duel failed to come about. The use of the term philotes in the negotiations between Achaeans and Trojans is remarkable, as philotes was meant to convey the state of good will that ought to characterize the making of the agreement itself as well as the type of relations that were supposed to ensue the making of the agreement. In fact, as we shall see, philotes is a many-sided tenn used by Homer and others after him, in a variety of circumstances, almost all of which express a TIIE LINGillSTIC EVIDENCE 49 positive and friendly feeling. An analogous state of friendliness is conveyed in the near Eastern treaties by the tenn for "brotherhood" or "fraternity," a term which appears to have been technical but sufficiently flexible to accommodate many nuances of meanings and a variety of relationships in the diplomatic language of the Near Eastern potentates. Because of the manifest importance of the tenn philotes in the Homeric texts, an effort will be made here to explicate some of its nuances and to compare it with the concepts of "brotherhood" or "fraternity" found in the Near Eastern treaties. This brief analysis of philotes will primarily focus on the moral and legal implications, especially the implications which carried over to the international relations of the times. Let us then begin with a rapid review of the Near Eastern terms for "brotherhood." One of the most striking instances relating to brotherhood is the treaty between Ramses II and Hattusilis III (ca. 1280 B.C.), which declared at the outset that its purpose was to secure good peace and brotherly relations between the two kings and their respective peoples.1 The good relations were intended to endure beyond the life-span of the two kings, as their successors were to continue the brotherhood initiated by the signatories.2 The treaty and its resultant brotherhood were expected to prevail for all time to come. Again, in the famous Tawagalawas Letter, the king of Ahhiyawa, whoever he may have been, is addressed as "my brother," which seems to have been the standard address among sovereigns of the time, e.g., the kings of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Mitanni, and Hatti. Likewise, this is so in their letters found at Amarna and Bogazk~y, since the political relationship between allied rulers was conceived of as one of kinship, either of "fraternity" (ahutum) or "sonship." It has been suggested that brotherhood was invoked between rulers of equal status, whereas "paternity" (abutum) and "sonship" (marutum) expressed subordination, in particular that of a vassal to his overlord or "father," a relationship which might alternatively be interpreted as a relationship of service. In this context, the title of "brother" given by the Hittite king to the Ahhiyawan king acknowledges equality of rank and the greatness of the Ahhiyawan king. But as the correspondence between the Pharaoh and the king of Cyprus shows, that fonn of address could also be used between rulers of unequal rank. Munn-Rankin, who has examined the Mesopotamian evidence in detail about this problem, has come to the conclusion that although dependence of a vassal on his overlord was expressed in tenns of sonship, "fraternity" and "sonship" were not strictly technical tenns and therefore are not reliable guides to political status, so that

Weidner, Polit. Dok., 27; Korosec, RIDA 22 (1975) 55-56; E. Bickerrnan, AJPh 73 (1952) 8-9. 2 Weidner, Polit. Dok., 27; S. Langdon and A.H. Gardiner, JEA 6 (1920) 186-87, 188- 89.