1 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND LATIN RESHAPING HERODOTEAN RHETORIC A study of the speeches in Herodotus’ Histories with special attention to books 5-9 VASILIKI ZALI Thesis submitted to the University College of London for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University College London March 2009 2 DECLARATION I, Vasiliki Zali, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signature 3 ABSTRACT This thesis examines the speeches in Herodotus’ Histories, especially in books 5-9, with reference to overriding narrative themes like the self-other polarity (Greeks vs. barbarians/Persians), the themes of freedom and free speech, the relation of speech to power and authority, and the fragility of the Greek coalition. The thesis has a double aim. First, it seeks to present Herodotean rhetoric as an idiosyncratic system, which not only borrows and reworks traditional and contemporary components in a new form, so that they underpin broader narrative themes, but which also influences Thucydidean rhetoric and later rhetorical developments. Second, it investigates the extent to which Herodotean rhetoric can be used to re-evaluate Herodotus’ narrative technique and to challenge the model of dialogism ascribed to the Histories. Chapter 1 sheds light on the problematic representation of both Greek and Persian debate in the Histories. It demonstrates the dangerous and slippery nature of rhetoric in circumstances where the Greeks lack pan-Hellenic aspirations, with individualistic tendencies leading the way. The following two chapters turn to more specific speech genres, alliance speeches and pre-battle speeches. Through examination of examples of scheming rhetoric, dubious motives and power struggles, chapter 2 demonstrates the difficulty of achieving unity among the Greeks, while chapter 3 unveils the relative character of a type of exhortation which is partly stripped of lofty intentions, reflecting the delicate balance of the relationships between the Greeks. Both chapters 2 and 3 problematize the self-other distinction. Chapter 4 considers examples used in speeches and shows how they represent the circumlocutory nature of rhetoric in both Persia and Greece, as well as the slender Greek alliance. Chapter 5 looks at the implications of allotting speech to individuals and ethnic groups for the self-other distinction, the Greek coalition, and the relation of speech to power and authority. 4 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6 ABBREVIATIONS 8 NOTE ON TEXT AND TRANSLATIONS 10 INTRODUCTION 11 1. Previous work on speeches and the contribution of this study 13 2. Terminology 15 3. Contextualizing Herodotus 24 4. Justifying the scope of the analysis: major themes and contemporary historical context 31 5. Structure of the discussion 34 CHAPTER 1: DEBATES 38 1.1 Between Thucydides and Homer 39 1.2 Greece 40 1.3 Persia 58 1.4 Conclusion: problematization of debate and Herodotean dialogism 77 CHAPTER 2: ALLIANCE SPEECHES 79 2.1 Definition and generic features 79 2.2 Sketching out the lines of the analysis 80 2.3 Herodotean topoi 81 2.4 Earlier and later literature 89 2.5 Case studies 91 2.6 Conclusion 112 CHAPTER 3: PRE-BATTLE SPEECHES 113 3.1 Discussion of the genre 113 5 3.2 Literary overview 116 3.3 Herodotus 119 3.4 Harangues and Herodotean narrative 147 3.5 Conclusion 149 CHAPTER 4: PARADIGMATIC SPEECHES 150 4.1 Literary overview 151 4.2 Herodotus 156 4.3 Conclusion 188 CHAPTER 5: ALLOCATION OF SPEECH 189 5.1 Alternation between direct and indirect speech modes 190 5.2 Silence 195 5.3 Greeks vs. Persians 225 5.4 Conclusion: Herodotean dialogism revisited 227 CONCLUSION 229 APPENDIX 1: CATALOGUE OF GREEK AND PERSIAN DEBATES (BOOKS 5-9) 232 APPENDIX 2: MAXIMS AND PROVERBS 238 BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis, the product of long and scrupulous research into the playful and illusive world of Herodotean rhetoric, is by no means an isolated creation. Many people, both colleagues and friends, helped in different but equally important ways to the completion of this study. It gives me great pleasure to have at last the opportunity to thank them. The greatest thanks goes to Professor Simon Hornblower, my primary supervisor and most valuable advisor. All these years he has been correcting numerous drafts of chapters and of the complete thesis, with an unfailing eye and unique patience – and, I must say, very rapidly indeed. His scholarly expertise, his invaluable guidance and his constructive and challenging comments helped me to deeply appreciate Herodotus the artist and find novel and rewarding ways to explore the Histories. His open-mindedness, kindness of character, remarkable energy and inexhaustible enthusiasm have been a constant inspiration for me. I have been taught a lot by his insistence on the correctness of language and expression as well as his attention to detail. His support, mentoring and encouragement have been priceless. I do not have the luxury of space to elaborate further on all I have gained from my working with him. The best proof of my gratitude and appreciation for him is the acknowledgement that he has been the most decisive factor of my academic development. Studying with him has been an honour and, without exaggeration, a real blessing. I am also very grateful to Professor Chris Carey, my second supervisor, who comprehensively went through the final draft of the thesis as well as previous drafts of several chapters. Notwithstanding his immense workload, he sacrificed generously his limited free time to discuss with me various questions and problems of concept and structure. His critical eye and shrewd comments helped me to refine my arguments and saved me from vagueness and inconsistencies. I consider myself very lucky to have studied close to him. I would also like to thank the following people for useful comments on individual chapters: Mr. Alan Griffiths (chapter 1), Dr. Elton Barker, Tutor and Lecturer in Classics at the University of Oxford (chapter 5), and Ioannis Konstantakos, Assistant Professor of Classics at the University of Athens (chapter 5). 7 I am equally thankful to Leslie Goldmann, Adam Goldwyn, Charlotte Greenacre, Ed Sanders and Rafael Schiel, all of whom kindly offered to read through various chapters and improve my English idiom and correctness of expression. For any mistakes there may still remain at the level of both conception and expression I am solely responsible. I am deeply indebted to the A. G. Leventis Foundation, which was interested by my research, trusted in my academic potential and kindly offered to fund my project in the past few years. The UCL Alumni Scholarship 2006/07 also enabled me to carry on with my research and I should like to express my gratitude to the sponsors. Vassilis Lendakis, Assistant Professor of Classics at the University of Athens, also deserves a profound thanks. He offered to supervise my Master’s Dissertation and suggested a subject which allowed me to examine Herodotus vis-à-vis Thucydides and become familiar with all the relevant problems, current theories and up-to-date bibliography. His guidance, counsels and humanity have helped me immensely at academic and personal level, both during my Master and my Ph.D. degrees. A sincere thanks from the bottom of my heart goes to the people who supported me on the personal side. Dr. Alexandros Androulidakis, Sylvia Georgiadou, Skevi Georgiou, Eleni Katsae, Akis Kechagias, Dimitra Kokkini and Rafael Schiel, all stood by me in good and bad times, and, over several cups of coffee or over the phone, shared – or sometimes even patiently tolerated – my thoughts, my anxieties and my complaints. Their support has been invaluable from the beginning to the very end. Finally, this enterprise would not have been plausible if it had not been for all the help of my family. There are no words adequate enough to express how thankful I am to my mother, Orsalia, and my two younger sisters, Pagona and Maria. They embraced and encouraged my decision to undertake this degree and they have been a source of unfailing emotional support and love over all these years. This study is dedicated to them, as well as to the memory of my father. 8 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations of ancient authors and their works are mainly these used in OCD3. Abbreviations of journal titles follow the system of L’Année Philologique. In addition to these, the subsequent abbreviations are used: BE J. Robert and L. Robert, Bulletin Épigraphique in RÉG 86 (1973) FGE D.L. Page (ed.), Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge 1981) Hude C. Hude, Herodoti Historiae (Oxford 19273) LGPN II S. G. Byrne and M. J. Osborne (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. II: Attica (Oxford 1994) LGPN III.A P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. III.A: The Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily and Magna Graecia (Oxford 1997) LSJ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, With a Revised Supplement, rev. by H. S. Jones (Oxford 19969) OCD3 S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford 20033 [revised]) PMG D. L. Page (ed.), Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962) Powell J. E. Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge 1938) Radermacher L. Radermacher, Artium scriptores (Wien 1951) RE A. Pauly, G. Wissowa and W. Kroll (eds.), Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgard 1893-1980) 9 Spengel L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, vol. II (Lipsiae 1854) Stein H. Stein, Herodotus (Berlin 19016) Usener/ H. Usener and L. Radermacher (ed.), Dionysii Halicarnasei Radermacher Opuscula (Lipsiae 1899-1929) West M. L. West (ed.), Delectus ex Iambis et Elegis Graecis (Oxford 1980) 10 NOTE ON TEXT AND TRANSLATIONS I cite Herodotus by the Oxford Classical Text (OCT) of C.