Themis in Sophocles by Christopher Michael Sampson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in the University of Michigan 2009 Doctoral Committee: Professor Ruth S. Scodel, Chair Professor Victor Caston Professor Derek B. Collins Professor Richard Janko Associate Professor Sara L. Forsdyke ii © Christopher Michael Sampson 2009 ii Acknowledgments This study has been a long time in the making, and there are many debts to be acknowledged. I began considering the interpretation of Philoctetes in which it culminates as a Master’s student at Dalhousie University in 2002, under the tutelage of Dr. Leona MacLeod and Dr. Rainer Friedrich, each of whom encouraged me to pursue it further at Michigan. A Doctoral Fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada helped support me during the first four years of study here, and during my sixth and final year, a Rackham Graduate School Predoctoral Fellowship provided the release that allowed me to finish. I am grateful to both bodies for their support. Particular thanks are owed to my dissertation committee, the members of which each had a unique perspective on the subject matter I grappled with. I note my deep gratitude to my chair, Ruth Scodel, whose insights are to be found throughout the work, and to Richard Janko, whose diligence repeatedly shed new light on material I thought I had mastered. That I could have such caring and learned academic parents is a true luxury. Derek Collins supervised the preliminary examination on divination which provided the basis for my work on oracles, Sara Forsdyke lent valuable assistance especially with the third chapter’s historical material, and Victor Caston helped things proceed virtuously. They all have my deepest gratitude. For the errors which remain, I am solely responsible. The committee comprises but a small sample of the scholars from whose guidance I have benefited, and I could easily list each member of the Department of Classical Studies ii faculty in this space. That I point out Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, Sara Ahbel-Rappe, Ben Forston, Traianos Gagos, David Potter, Mira Seo, and Arthur Verhoogt with particular thanks is as much to indicate my debt to the faculty as a whole as it is to single them out. I thank as well Dirk Obbink, who graciously provided access to his manuscript of the forthcoming volume on Philodemos’ On Piety II. I was also saved on numerous occasions by the diligence of Michelle Biggs, who consistently handled even the most mundane of my inquiries with grace and good humor. To my cohort of fellow graduate students, some of whom have already moved on from the PhD program, some of whom are only beginning, and with some of whom I’ve spent the bulk of the last six years, I offer a heartfelt thanks. Many provided valuable feedback on chapters 1, 2 and 4 in the form of the Department’s dissertator support group, and Kris Fletcher (in particular) read a very early version of the fourth chapter with considerable care. That these chapters have changed much since those conversations and workshops is a testament to these friends’ learning and collegiality. And to everyone who was willing to have a beer (or two), share a desk, yell at the television, welcome me into the family, cook dinner, play poker, respond to a seeking message, take in Michigan football or hockey, or generally enjoy the finer things in life, please know that you have contributed to the general state of my mental health and to the completion of this study. I think my family now knows what Classical Philology is (though I wasn’t sure for some time), but I owe my love of antiquity to the high-school year they allowed me to spend in Lanciano, Italy, and I owe my enthusiasm for thinking deeply about texts to the example of my brother, Stephen. I could not have embarked on this path without them. Final thanks go to Dina Guth, whose company I discovered shortly before I began writing this dissertation, and who bore with me as I labored over it. I look forward to returning the favor. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. ii Abbreviations and Primary Texts .................................................................................... vii Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 a. Themis in Sophocles ................................................................................................... 1 i. Scholarship and Methodology ................................................................................ 1 ii. Outline of the Argument ........................................................................................ 9 iii. Character-speech and the Rhetoric of themis .................................................. 13 iv. Orthography & Nomenclature .......................................................................... 17 Chapter 1 .......................................................................................................................... 18 Epic Themis and Abstract Right ...................................................................................... 18 a. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 18 b. Early forms of themis ................................................................................................ 20 i. Indo-European *dhê- ............................................................................................ 20 ii. Mycenaean Greek .................................................................................................. 22 c. Singular, abstract themis .......................................................................................... 26 i. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 26 ii. Formulaic themis: ἣ θέμιϲ (ἐϲτίν) ......................................................................... 29 iii. More abstract themis: οὐ θέμιϲ and ἀθέμιϲτοϲ ................................................. 43 iv. Themis, the gods, and the cosmos .................................................................... 56 d. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 69 Chapter 2 .......................................................................................................................... 72 Themistes and Societies ................................................................................................... 72 a. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 72 b. Themis and Social Boundaries .................................................................................. 75 i. Semi-abstract themis ............................................................................................. 75 ii. Themistes and the law ........................................................................................... 85 c. Themistes and Authority ........................................................................................... 92 i. Themistes and scepters .......................................................................................... 92 ii. The gods and themistes ....................................................................................... 107 iii. The verb themisteuein ..................................................................................... 115 d. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 120 Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................ 122 Themis, Cult, and Early Oracles .................................................................................... 122 a. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 122 b. Evidence for Archaic Themis-cult .......................................................................... 126 iv i. Thessaly & Rhamnous ........................................................................................ 126 ii. Themis and Early Oracles: Dodona and Olympia .............................................. 133 iii. Delphi and the ‘Previous Owners’ Myth ........................................................ 139 c. The Cases of Dodona and Delphi ......................................................................... 145 i. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 145 ii. πόμπιοϲ ὁ δαίμων: Oracular Divination at Dodona .......................................... 147 iii. Early History of the Delphic Oracle ............................................................... 155 iv. Delphic Innovation ......................................................................................... 160 d. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 168 Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................ 171 Towards an Oracular themis .........................................................................................