EMISSARIES IN THE NARRATIVE OF HERODOTUS BY ALISON L. LANSKI DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classical Philology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Emeritus David Sansone, Chair Professor Emerita Deborah Boedeker, Brown University Associate Professor Maryline Parca Associate Professor Kirk Sanders Associate Professor Angeliki Tzanetou ABSTRACT Scores of messengers, heralds, and other emissaries fill the pages of Herodotus’ Histories. Nevertheless, scholarship on narrative patterns has yet to consider their importance. This thesis uses methods from linguistics and narratology to demonstrate how Herodotus uses emissaries to support themes and reveal narrative structure throughout his text. An initial typology of vocabulary provides a basic framework for the investigation which follows in four main sections. First, emissaries are shown to embody geographic and temporal connections, thereby providing cues for the audience through Herodotus’ digressive narrative. Second, Herodotus’ conception of a “typical” emissary is determined (swift and reliable), which allows subsequent deviation from “type” to be understood as indicating negative assessments of characters. Third, scenes where messages are rejected provide a novel way to examine issues of relative status and the perception of power within the frame of reciprocity. Finally, three case studies (the Scythian logos, Cyrus’ life, and preparations for the battle of Salamis) combine these modes of analysis to show how Herodotus manipulates the presentation of emissaries to direct the attention and judgment of his audience towards characters, cultural differences, and wider narrative themes. ii For Ethan iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sometimes it felt as though my progress on this thesis was as digressive as Herodotus’ narrative. Fortunately, many people helped my path through this project. This thesis would not exist without Maryline Parca or David Sansone. Maryline encouraged me to expand the short seminar paper that started this project and has been a careful reader throughout the entire process. David Sansone first recognized the thesis lurking within a conference paper. As my advisor and dissertation committee chair, David has been a consistently patient, optimistic, and insightful voice whose excitement about my progress always inspired me to work harder. The other Illinois members of my committee, Kirk Sanders and Angeliki Tzanetou, provided welcome perspectives and valuable questions in addition to moral support. I must also give my thanks to Deborah Boedeker, who joined the final committee and brought her holistic knowledge of Herodotus to bear for the clear improvement of my argument and prose. Many others academics touched this thesis in some way. Carolyn Dewald and John Marincola read and commented on my proposal. Helma Dik, Alexander Hollmann, Emily Jusino, and Maria Kazanskaya were consulted at various points in their areas of expertise. Valuable discussion occurred in seminars hosted by the University of Chicago Rhetoric and Poetics workshop and by the Illinois Department of Classics; I thank all the faculty and graduate students who attended. Jonathan Hall, Rebecca Muich, Kirk Ormand, Alex Purves, and Ralph Rosen all provided more informal support. The energy of Antony Augoustakis as DGS made me always feel a part of the department, even when I was living elsewhere. For assistance with campus business when I was off-campus, I owe much thanks to Mary Ellen Fryer and to the denizens of FLB 4068, especially Amy Oh with whom I started this program and without whom I might not have made it through. Finally, a Dissertation Fellowship from the Graduate College allowed me to focus on my writing and get everything finished (nearly) on time. Of course, as anyone familiar with Herodotus knows, the digressions help build meaning for the main story. Support from the Classics Department allowed me to spend a summer exploring Greece at the ASCSA. Playing Ultimate with Prion, at Grant Park pickup, and in the Ultimate Chicago leagues was delightful and restorative. Unfailing and perpetual non-academic support came from Charles, Elizabeth, and Jennifer Lanski. I owe just as much to my extended family and friends, including Jennifer Rho, Kevin Tucker, Angelo Ramos Jr., Kaitlin Mallouk, Bill Hunt, Cheryl and Brad Griffin, Joe Weindel, Cathy Long, and Sarah Lieber. For bearing the brunt of my frustrations and panic upon nearing deadlines, there are no suitable words to express the profound gratitude I have for the countless hours my husband, Ethan Lieber, spent helping me to refine my thoughts and being a voice of confidence when I felt very small in a large world of scholarship. With much love, I dedicate this thesis to him. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND TYPOLOGY....................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: EMISSARIES AS TOOLS OF NARRATIVE.......................................................28 CHAPTER 3: CHARACTER AND IDENTITY...........................................................................58 CHAPTER 4: DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER!.....................................................................102 CHAPTER 5: EMISSARIES IN NARRATIVE: THREE CASE STUDIES..............................128 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................172 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................178 v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND TYPOLOGY Why Emissaries? Emissaries of all sorts are vital to the tales in Herodotus’ Histories: they provide links between people and places and are key cogs in a sprawling narrative of diplomacy and battles. We see them bringing information, requests for aid, terms of negotiation, and more. They are the eyes, ears, and voices of their rulers. Despite their important supporting role, emissaries and messages in Herodotus as a whole have largely escaped scholarly notice. Instead, emissaries are treated incidentally as discrete evidence in larger studies. Much of Herodotean scholarship on emissaries stems from ideas previously examined in the Homeric epics1 and Athenian tragedy.2 Representation of speech acts and focalization have become important areas of narrative study3 which in recent years have been applied to the Histories. Although speech acts include statements made by proxies, de Jong’s focus (2001, 2004) is on the narrative effect, not the emissary himself. Rood (2007) expands his analysis to discuss the case of Talthybius, but his concern lies with the nature of the prolepsis, not the hero’s characterization or role as a herald. Other narratological points of interest are raised only in passing as parts of larger works. Immerwahr (1966, 271) mentions a “messenger motif” but provides no explanation. Bowie (2007, 98) recognizes the ability of emissaries to shift narrative 1 Research on Homeric epic dealing with emissaries includes: Wéry (1967), Karavites (1987), Létoublon (1987), De Jong (1989), and Durán López (1999). 2 The robust research on emissaries in Athenian tragedy includes: Bonet (1956), Rijksbaron (1976), Bremer (1976), Goblot-Cahen (1999), Guzmán García (1999), Payne (2000), Barrett (2002), and Gastaldi (2007). The works of Bremer, de Jong (1989, 1991), Goward (1999), and Payne tend to focus on narratological features of emissary speeches. However, since Herodotus rarely provides the actual words of an intermediary, the scholarship on speeches is largely inapplicable to the Histories. In addition, the ability of tragic emissaries to provide off-stage information (cf. Bremer, in particular) is unnecessary in a prose text which can simply relocate the scene to the place and time of the relevant action. Rijksbaron’s analysis of the formulaic way a messenger scene begins will prove more useful for Herodotus. 3 For speeches and speech acts in Herodotus, see the following: Hohti (1976), Lang (1984), Pelling (2006), and de Bakker (2007). Focalization and levels of discourse have been discussed in additional detail by Dewald (1999) and de Jong (1997, 1999, 2002 and 2004). 1 locations: “The arrival of an informant or messenger is a frequent narrative device in this book [8], here [chapter 8] covering the shift from the Persian to the Greek camp: cf. 21, 23, 24.2, 26.1, 50.1, 79, 82.1”. Neither scholar goes into any further detail or cites any relevant bibliography. Beyond this work, some scholars highlight the formulaic nature of the scenes in which emissaries appear, leading to interest in a sort of emissary type-scene (Sancho 2003); others point to the folk-tale nature of many stories involving emissaries (Griffiths 2006). Myers (1943) and Stouder (2006) additionally consider the linguistic question of what ἀκήρυκτος4 means in the context of warfare. Finally there is some interest from a historical standpoint. Kraft (1964), Wéry (1966), and Sealey (1976) all consider the historicity of the story about the Persian heralds killed in Athens and Sparta in 491 (7.133). Mosley (1973) provides an in-depth historical account of all types of ambassadors and emissaries, but unfortunately his primary focus lies in the later 5th and 4th centuries. However his explication of the status, security, and responsibilities of emissaries provides useful background knowledge about Herodotean characters.5