Brown ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 2011 H. Paul Brown A Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Account of δαιµόνιε in Early Greek Epic H. Paul Brown HE ADDRESS FORM δαιµόνιε is not particularly common in early Greek epic (hereafter epic),1 with thirteen occur- rences in the Iliad, nine in the Odyssey, and two in Hesiod and in the Hymns.2 The range of contexts in which δαιµόνιε is found, along with the range of speakers and ad- dressees, has resulted in a bewildering range of interpretive stances.3 Attempts at defining the term have resulted in either chaotic polysemy or vagueness. Wendel states “within the same work it can express now blame, now admiration, now gravity, now astonishment, now contempt, now friendship.”4 Brunius- Nilsson found similar “complete contrasts” but nevertheless de- fended a unified semantics wherein it has an essential, neutral meaning which: 1 G. Hutchinson, “Deflected Addresses: Apostrophe and Space (Sopho- cles, Aeschines, Plautus, Cicero, Virgil and Others),” CQ 60 (2010) 96–109, at 98, prefers the term ancient hexameter narrative to distinguish Homeric texts (and the Aspis) from didaxis and lyric. 2 E. Dickey, Greek Forms of Address from Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford 1996) 141–142, notes that the vocative of δαιµόνιος predates its referential use, first found in Pindar. See also E. Brunius-Nilsson, Δαιµόνιε, An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature (Uppsala 1955) 5 and 139. 3 Brunius-Nilsson, Δαιµόνιε 6, herself notes “the confusion which exists as far as this word is concerned is apparent from the fact that the inter- pretations of one and the same passage by different scholars, even in quite recent years, can vary between such extremes.” 4 T. Wendel, Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit (Stuttgart 1929) 108. B. Mader, LfgE 10 (1982) 197–198, if differing in spe- cifics, assigns a similarly wide range of meanings to δαιµόνιε. T H. PAUL BROWN 499 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 expresses intensity, force—a force of the kind realized by a speaker using the name of the person addressed … (by) creating this intimate atmosphere and obliging the person addressed to co-operate.5 Τhis description suggests that, in epic, the use of δαιµόνιε does not reflect a lexical meaning (possessed by a daimon, vel sim.), 6 but social constraints (intimacy, force) and discourse strategies (oblig- ing, naming). Mader similarly observes social constraints on the use of the term, specifically that δαιµόνιε regularly opens a speech that reacts to, rather than initiates, discourse.7 Brunius- Nilsson’s insight was that δαιµόνιε did not correspond to any consistent evaluation of an addressee, but reflected the context in which it appeared, which she took to be intimate. The ques- tion is how to determine whether δαιµόνιε actually functions in this way. Brunius-Nilsson’s study omits a systematic examina- tion of the social relationships involved—surprising given the social nature of her definition. Instead, she proceeds more or less ad hoc, which, Dickey notes, results in great difficulties.8 Wendel’s, Mader’s, and Brunius-Nilsson’s attempts to explain δαιµόνιε in epic met with mixed results for two related reasons: they failed to account for a distinction between lexical meaning and pragmatic or functional meaning, and they conflated grammatical function with discourse function. In this paper I attempt to define a prototypical usage for δαιµόνιε across the 26 instances of the term in Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns, by correlating the social and interpersonal relationships of the various interactants with features of the 5 Brunius-Nilsson, Δαιµόνιε 146. 6 A. Sihler, Language History: An Introduction (Philidelphia 2000) 131, sums up the problem with previous, etymologically based interpretations: “it can- not be overemphasized that a word’s etymology is not its meaning. And emphasis is called for, here: the etymological fallacy is immemorial and shows no signs of exhaustion.” 7 Mader, LfgE 10 (1982) 198; his exceptions: Il. 9.40, 13.448, 24.194, on which see below ad loc. 8 Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 141. 500 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 particular contexts in which the term is used. In this way it will be possible to note any patterns of usage (or their absence) and isolate any instances that deviate from that pattern. The ascrip- tion of qualities such as familiarity or intimacy to occurrences of δαιµόνιε, as commentators have suggested,9 should corre- spond, by and large, to a pattern of social relations within self- identified social units such as the immediate family, οἶκϰος, φῦλον, φρϱήτηρϱ, etc. In general, the results of this study do re- veal a correlation between the use of δαιµόνε and familiarity so defined, but also a pattern of use by speakers in positions of authority. Neither of these tendencies is absolute, and the ex- ceptions suggest that the speakers’ emotional states were an important factor as well. 1. The Vocative, Formal versus Functional Categories One of the problems in Wendel’s and Brunius-Nilsson’s studies arises from their assumption that vocative noun phrases (NPs) refer or denote in the way that other case forms do. Cer- tain facts about the vocative argue, however, that this is not the case. (1) Vocative NPs are asyntactic; they cannot function as verbal arguments and so do not enter into syntactic relations to form larger propositions, nor can they affect the truth-con- ditionality of such propositions (cf. [John,] there’s a spider on your back). Brown and Yule distinguish between transactional (content expressing) and the interactional (context expressing) functions, according to which vocatives serve primarily interactional func- tions.10 (2) Like interjections, vocative NPs typically appear non- elliptically as a single, complete utterance, distinguished as a separate intonational unit.11 Interjections serve primarily to in- 9 Brunius-Nilsson, Δαιµόνιε 13–14; J. T. Hooker, Homer Iliad III (Bristol 1980) 263–264; N. Richardson, The Iliad: A Commentary VI (Cambridge 1985) 294. 10 G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge 1983) 1. 11 On the position of vocatives in Greek see E. Fraenkel, Noch Einmal, Kolon und Satz (Munich 1965), esp. 70–71. Fraenkel omits epic from his study. H. PAUL BROWN 501 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 dicate changes in the “speaker’s current mental state” (e.g., wow!, damn!, mehercule!),12 and often develop from other word classes, including, vocative NPs (e.g., oh my God!, man!, Great- Caesar’s-ghost!). (3) Like discourse particles,13 vocatives play a role in the on-going organization of discourse, by regulating relations between interactants, including conversational turn-taking and topic management.14 In general, there is considerable overlap between these categories. (4) A wider range of NPs can be used in the vocative than are used to refer to an individual, suggest- ing that the vocative does not function solely, or even primar- ily, to identify the addressee. 1.a: Social relations and speech Humans employ a wide range of social categories to organize their experience: sameness and difference; distinctions in age, gender, relatedness, class; ascriptions of friendliness, etc. Within a specific relationship (a dyad), one individual is usually viewed as more important, influential, etc.15 These categories are generally 12 A. Wierzbicka, “The Semantics of Interjection,” Journal of Pragmatics 18 (1992) 159–192, at 164. 13 F. Ameka, “Interjections, the Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech,” Journal of Pragmatics 18 (1992) 101–118, at 102, distinguishes between the formal word class interjection and the utterance type exclamation, assigning to the latter expressions of the speaker’s mental state. On the distinction between particles and interjections see M. Mosegaard Hansen, The Function of Discourse Particles (Philadelphia 1998) 38–41, and Ameka 105–111. The term particle is most commonly used as a formal category referring to (usually) small, in- variant terms that do not belong to one of the canonical word classes; also referred to as function words. These include conjunctions, negations, modal particles (such as ἄν), topic-focus particles (δέ, µέν), and illocutionary par- ticles (ἄρϱ, γε, µέν, δή). 14 M. McCarthy and A. O’Keefe, “ ‘What’s in a Name?’: Vocatives in Casual Conversation and Radio Phone-in Calls,” in P. Leistyna and C. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use (Amsterdam 2003) 154–185, at 160–165. 15 R. J. Watts, Politeness (Cambridge 2003) 155, defines power as the abil- ity to change “the value and/or structure of (social) network links” within an ongoing interaction. 502 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 scalar, and so the social relationships that they define are hierarchical on multiple levels.16 Social structures may be con- ventionalized, as in a caste system or involving conventional roles such as policeman, or they may be situational, as in asking for directions, or they may involve some combinationof these. Although individuals continuously construct or reconstruct the social structures within which they operate, they often perceive them to be preexisting and static.17 Language is crucial for organizing these social structures, and the communication of information is often secondary to man- aging behavior and social relationships. Saville-Troike defines three basic social functions for language: separating, unifying, and stratifying, all of which are organizational.18 Since language use reflects and organizes the social world, the hierarchical nature of that world should be reflected in language.19 Speakers’ language, in fact, varies, often quite dramatically, according to the specific social relations,20 and the facility with which speak- ers switch between registers emphasizes the importance they place on the social role of language perception and suitability. 16 P. Eckert, Linguistic Variation as Social Practice (Malden 2000) 41–45, ar- gues that identity construction involves the manipulation of a cluster of parameters that contribute to the display of a social identity. 17 The relationship between individual praxis and social norms assumed here reflects Bourdieu’s term habitus in which social structures are inter- nalized through socialization and then reenacted, often unconsciously: P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Stanford 1990) 52. 18 M. Saville-Troike, The Ethnography of Communication3 (Malden 2003) 15. 19 Cf. M. Locher, “Polite Behavior within Relational Work: The Discur- sive Approach to Politeness,” Multilingua 25 (2006) 249–267: “people are social beings who use language not only to communicate facts but also to shape their identities vis-à-vis their interactional partners” (250). 20 See M. A. K. Haliday and R. Hasen, Cohesion in English (Longman 1976). Such variation is usually referred to as register, and involves shifts not only in lexicon but in grammar and pronunciation as well. On the distinc- tion between dialect and register see R. Hudson, Sociolinguistics2 (Cambridge 1996) 45–54. H. PAUL BROWN 503 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 1.b: Sociolinguistics, status, and familiarity Two basic metrics define the social relationships of indi- viduals:21 (1) Status refers to notions of importance, position, rank, etc., and reflects the fact that some individual claims more ability, control, or agency, in some given relevant context. In defining status, Saville-Troike distinguishes two aspects: power and prestige.22 Ervin-Tripp, O’Connor, and Rosenberg repre- sent the first as the “ability to get compliance” and the second as the ability to receive deference but not have to show it.23 Power reflects the control of resources such as physical ability, wealth, charisma, etc.; prestige reflects the acceptability of images associated with age, gender, class, etc.24 (2) Familiarity refers to the degree to which individuals perceive themselves to share a common social identity, and common experiences and knowledge. Homeric social relations are informed by differences in status and familiarity which, while not arbitrary, are also not fixed. Nestor, in fact, expresses the importance of status at Il. 1.280– 281, distinguishing the two aspects discussed by Saville-Troike 21 On the concepts of familiarity, solidarity, status, and power see for example Hudson, Sociolinguistics 122–127. R. Brown and A. Gilman, “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity,” in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language (London 1960) 253–276, are responsible for the specific terms power and solidarity. Watts’s criticism of Brown and Levinson’s use of scalar parameters such as social distance (i.e., solidarity) reflects his concerns about assumptions of a rational, deliberate individual, not with the parameter itself: Watts, Politeness 68–69, on P. Brown and S. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge 1987). Bourdieu’s notion of the habitus can account for the effects of this parameter, and eliminates the need for a constantly aware, rational, and deliberative individual calculating values for these parameters ad hoc: Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice 57–61. 22 Saville-Troike, Ethnography 72. 23 S. M. Ervin-Tripp, M. C. O’Connor, J. Rosenberg, “Language and Power in the Family,” in M. Schulz and C. Kramerae (eds.), Language and Power (Belmont 1984) 116–135, at 117–118. 24 Watts, Politeness 150, following Bourdieu, suggests that power (i.e., status) reflects the possession of material, cultural, and social capital. 504 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 and Ervin-Tripp et al., which he terms κϰρϱάτος and *φέρϱoς re- spectively,25 the latter of which he privileges: εἰ δὲ σὺ κϰαρϱτερϱός ἐσσι θεὰ δέ σε γείνατο µήτηρϱ, ἀλλ’ ὅ γε φέρϱτερϱός ἐστιν ἐπεὶ πλεόνεσσιν ἀνάσσει. you [Akhilleus] have more power because your mother is a god- dess, but [Agamemnon] has more prestige because he commands a greater armada. Nestor similarly acknowledges the importance of familiarity. His advice that Agamemnon reorganize the army κϰατὰ φῦλα κϰατὰ φρϱήτρϱας (Il. 2.362), reflects the importance he ascribes to shared identity for the army’s performance. 1.c: Pragmatics and disposition The infrequent, anomalous use of δαιµόνιε in epic suggests that social relations, which tend to be stable, were not the only determining factor, but that some pragmatic factors were in- volved, including the speaker’s emotional state.26 A speaker’s emotional relationship toward the addressee, what I am calling disposition, is also reflected in the form and content of their speech.27 Maynard argues that even propositional expressions, such as there’s a spider on your back, “always express, in varying degrees, emotive meanings as well.”28 Her point is that we 25 See P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue greque (Paris 1980) 1189. The Sanskrit cognate bharas refers to presentation, bearing, etc., and also reflects the passive nature of this aspect of status. 26 It is important not to ascribe ongoing mental states to the poets’ char- acters beyond those that the narrator describes. In this regard, the job of the interpreter is much like that of the hearer in the case of spoken discourse. 27 While N. Besnier, “Language and Affect,” Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1990) 419–451, obscures the distinction between feelings, the person’s inner “psychological sensations,” emotion, the outward display of feelings, and affect, the “subjective states that observers ascribe to a person on the basis of the person’s conduct,” features of the narrative frame, especially speech in- troductions, allow the poet to present all three. The distinction can be seen in the contrast between the introductory phrases τὴν δ’ ἄρϱ’ ὑπόδρϱα ἰδὼν πρϱοσέφη (emotion) and τὴν δὲ µέγ’ ὀχθήσας πρϱοσέφη (feelings). 28 S. Maynard, Linguistic Emotivity: Centrality of Place, the Topic-Comment Dy- H. PAUL BROWN 505 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 often need to consider a speaker’s emotional state when ana- lyzing any particular utterance. The importance of disposition can be seen in the first verse of the Iliad: µῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά, Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος defines Akhilleus first by his emotional state (µῆνις) and only then by other, traditional attributes (Πηληιάδης). His disposition and its changes are reflected in his language. The language he uses to address Agamemnon changes considerably over the course of the poem.29 Dickey argues that disposition, however, is not formally encoded in the Greek address system the way that status and familiarity are.30 This fact reflects how disposition is situational rather than social, and how, as Schnall states, “the manner in which experiential states map onto lexical terms is constrained by the communi- cative context.”31 Thus disposition relates to specific features of a specific encounter, and so operates on the pragmatic level.32 The social positions of characters in epic can be read with respect to these three parameters, which, for convenience sake, may be imagined as a three-dimensional space (see fig. 1). In determining what language to use, the speaker locates the ad- ___ namic, and an Ideology of Pathos in Japanese Discourse (Philadelphia 2002) 4. 29 See R. Friedrich, “ ‘Flaubertian Homer’: The Phrase Juste in Homeric Diction,” Arion 10.2 (2002) 1–13, at 2. 30 Her point is not that disposition, “the feelings of the speaker towards the addressee and the general emotional level of the interaction,” does not in- fluence the choice of address form, but that it is not subject to sociolinguistic rules or rule formation and so not encoded in the grammar: Greek Forms of Address 8. On the Greek (Attic) address system and the grammatical encod- ing of the social parameters of power and solidarity see E. Dickey, “The Ancient Greek Address System and Some Proposed Sociolinguistic Univer- sals,” Language in Society 26 (1997) 1–13. However, terms such as σχέτλιος, or even φίλος, as address forms, refer to dispositional categories more than they do specific social ones, as terms like πατήρϱ or στρϱατηγός do. 31 S. Schnall, “The Pragmatics of Emotion Language,” Psychological Inquiry 16 (2005) 28–31, at 28. 32 Besnier suggests that emotions can be expressed formally on the gram- matical and lexical level, which is usually referred to as connotation: Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1990) 422. 506 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 dressee at a point on all three axes simultaneously.33 The simultaneous independence and interconnectedness of these parameters is important for understanding interactional dy- namics. Location on, or movement along, any one axis does not relate in any deterministic way to position on the other axes, although it is often informed by it.34 HIGHER STATUS NEGATIVE Z LESS FAMILIAR EGO X POSITIVE Y LOWER STATUS Figure 1. Schematization of speaker-to-addressee social dynamics 33 The degree of familiarity is marked along the X axis, status along the Y axis, and disposition along the Z axis. On the notion that social relations involve individuals locating themselves and their addressee in relative po- sitions along variable scales, especially of status and familiarity, see Brown and Levinson, Politeness 107–111, and Hudson, Sociolinguistics 120–134. Watts, Politeness 154–155, notes how these positions are variable and are con- structed by interactants at the moment of their interaction, on the basis of their previous experience and the exigencies of the immediate context. 34 The importance of this can be seen in the common T/V (tu/vous) ad- dress system, in which status and familiarity are both important conditions for the suitability of address forms. Terms associated with elevated addressee status also mark social distance; terms associated with equal or lower ad- dressee status also mark familiarity. In T/V address systems, addressees marked as +S(tatus) and those marked as –F(amiliarity) both receive V forms of address. T forms are reserved for addressees marked as =/–S and/or +F: see F. Braun, Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures (Boston 1988) 7–9. Examples are French tu and vous and Ger- man du and Sie. H. PAUL BROWN 507 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 How speakers behave, the language they use, will be influ- enced by where they position their addressee socially in respect to themselves.35 The degree of difference in status and the degree of familiarity of interactants represent important social pressures that influence what language is and is not felt to be felicitous.36 For example, in the world of the Iliad, Agamemnon is addressed by in-group speakers (the βασιλεῖς) with the title ἄναξ ἀνδρϱῶν and/or a patronymic, which I have suggested then functions as a title.37 Conversely, Akhilleus is addressed regularly with his given name by in-group speakers but with his patronymic only by out-group speakers. This pattern suggests how distinctions in familiarity and status can correlate to the choice of address within the world of the poem. Since there are only a few exceptions to the general socio- linguistic tendencies governing the use of δαιµόνιε, the primary focus here will be on pragmatic factors relating to the term’s use, especially the relation of speaker disposition to the param- eters of status and familiarity. 1.d: Evaluating social dynamics in epic speech Our task is to examine how the appearance of δαιµόνιε relates to the identities of speakers and addressees. There are, 35 On the effect of the audience on speaker intentions in Homer see B. Sammons, “Agamemnon and His Audience,” GRBS 49 (2009) 159–185, who argues that Agamemnon’s speech to Menelaos at Il. 4.155–182 should be read as intended, on some level, for others who are also present. 36 Speaker disposition is more complex. Because it is situation-specific, it is more dynamic than the other parameters. In addition, the speaker’s feelings both towards the addressee and about the addressee’s own feelings are po- tentially important, especially when the speaker is of lower status. 37 H. P. Brown, “Addressing Agamemnon: A Pilot Study of Politeness and Pragmatics in the Iliad,” TAPA 136 (2006) 1–46, at 40–43. Agamemnon is addressed as Ἀγάµεµνον alone only once, at Il. 2.362, by Nestor in his capacity as vizier. The narrator is not so constrained. See also A. Kahane, “The Semantics of Performance: A Case Study of Proper-Name Vocatives in Homer,” in F. Létoublon (ed.), Homage à Milman Parry (Amsterdam 1997) 251–262. 508 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 however, two issues that need to be addressed up front. First, given the culturally specific nature of status and familiarity on the one hand, and the pragmatic nature of disposition on the other, I will start by making clear how they were assigned. The status of the speaker in respect to the addressee was determined in the following way. Gods were assigned +S(tatus) over mortals be- cause of their power (κϰρϱάτος). Similarly for reasons of esteem (φέρϱος), leaders were assigned +S, as were masters, husbands, hosts, and older siblings.38 Finally, mutual strangers and battle- field opponents were taken to have approximately equal status, unless otherwise indicated. Speakers were thus assigned values of greater (+), equal (=), or lesser status (–), or intermediate values between those (+/= and =/–). For familiarity, the values of close (+), moderate (m), and distant (–), as well as intermediate points were assigned by the following criteria. Immediate fam- ily members—spouses, parents, children, siblings—were ranked the closest (+). Other members of a household or similar social unit, such as a ship’s crew, were ranked next close (+/m). Followers and leaders were ranked as moderate (m) in terms of familiarity, since differences in status tend to be reflected in a certain degree of social distance.39 Guests and hosts were ranked as moderately distant (m/–) because, while closing their mutual social distance, the stranger’s identity is not secure and so he still represents a potential danger.40 Complete strangers 38 The status of guests and hosts is complicated by the potential that the guest is a god. However, there are reasons to assign +S to the host. First, the host has the choice to admit the stranger or not. The host’s choice repre- sents a type of authority, since it is not reciprocal, and the threat posed by the stranger only makes sense as such if that choice is a real one. Second, since the host is at home, he has the resources of his community behind him, which the stranger does not. 39 This is reflected in T/V address systems: see n.34 above, and Braun, Terms of Address 7–9. There are a number of instances where subordinates willingly challenge or threaten to abandon their leaders, most notably Akhilleus in Iliad 1, the λαοί and Thersites in Iliad 2, and Odysseus’ crew on several occasions. 40 For example, Odysseus’ encounter with the Cyclops, Metaneira’s with H. PAUL BROWN 509 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 and battlefield opponents were ranked most distant (–). There are of course exceptions. When Telemakhos addresses the suitors as host, after his return to Ithaka, they are ranked as –F because of their ongoing abuse of xenia. The second point of caution involves instances of disguise. In this case, it seemed best to adopt the speaker’s perspective, and to assume that Odysseus speaks as Odysseus when he addresses Iros and Melantho, and that Eumaios speaks as if to a stranger.41 However, when Helen addresses Aphrodite as δαιµονίη at Il. 3.399, her language suggests that she recognizes her addressee, and so speaks to her as Aphrodite, with whom she has a particular history.42 2. Findings: Epic δαιµόνιε and Speaker Disposition Whereas the values assigned to status and familiarity were based on relatively stable social roles, speaker disposition is not stable, but subject to immediate pragmatic influences (which may include higher-level social factors). Furthermore, judging the dispositions of textual speakers is problematic because they do not have the internal mental states that physical individuals are assumed to, and cannot be queried for clarification. Never- theless, phrases such as ὑπόδρϱα ἰδών, θάµβησεν, and δάκϰρϱυ χέουσα in the surrounding narrative allow us to ascribe a ___ Demeter, and Menalaos’ understood encounter with Paris highlight the possibility for the realization of the threat represented by the ξεῖνος. 41 In the case of the first two examples, however, we should consider whether Odysseus πολύτρϱοπος is able to adopt the persona of his disguise, which complicates the situation somewhat: see S. Murnaghan, Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey (Princeton 1987) 5–8. 42 Brunius-Nilsson, Δαιµόνιε 31, takes the opposite position: “it seems ob- vious to me that, in spite of her recognition of Aphrodite, Helen addresses her remarks to a mortal woman.” However, the content of Helen’s speech specifically addresses her relationship to Aphrodite and its immediate history. G. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary I (Cambridge 1985) 323–324, takes δαιµονίη here to be ironic, while Hooker, Homer Iliad III 14, suggests that it reflects Helen’s confusion about Aphrodite’s motivations, which Kirk re- jects. 510 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 corresponding mental state to the character. This process is analogous to what we do ordinarily when interacting with another person, to whose mental states we also do not have ac- cess. But in a literary context, (1) there is less evidence of the speaker’s mental state, and (2) that evidence is presented by a narrator who actively manipulates it. The difficulty in establishing a character’s disposition can be judged by comparing different readers’ responses to the same passage. In respect to the poet’s use of δαιµόνιε, Brunius- Nilsson and Wendel agree in only five instances (Il. 2.200, 3.399, 4.31, 6.326, Od. 4.774). Since emotions are immediate, idiosyncratic, and variable, there is no algorithm to use in ascribing them, and such determinations must remain provi- sional. In the majority of instances of δαιµόνιε, however, there are contextual cues that relate to the speaker’s emotional state. In what follows I discuss evidence in Homer, Hesiod, and the Homeric Hymns for the disposition of speakers, including speech introductions, the content of the speech itself, and any de- scription of the addressee’s response. The values for all three parameters are then summed up in Table 1. 2.a. Negative speaker disposition A negative value (–) was assigned to the disposition of the speaker in 15 instances: Il. 1.561. Zeus to Hera (+S, +F): Zeus reacts when he learns that Hera has seen him talking to Thetis in secret. Hera is subsequently (1.568) described as becoming afraid (ἔδδεισεν) in response to Zeus’ speech. Il. 2.200. Odysseus to an ἀνὴρϱ δήµου (+S, mF): Athena tells him to calm the army in the aftermath of Agamemnon’s call to return home. Odysseus feigns shock at their behavior. At 2.199 before speaking, he beats a man (σκϰήπτρϱῳ ἐλάσασκϰεν). The verb that introduces his speech, ὁµοκϰλήσασκϰε, usually has a negative im- plication of reproach. Il. 3.399. Helen to Aphrodite in disguise (–S, +/mF):43 Helen is sud- 43 Helen’s relationship to Aphrodite, who is disguised as an old servant, in terms of the values assigned to status and familiarity is represented as the one H. PAUL BROWN 511 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 denly confronted by Aphrodite disguised as an old woman. Her re- action to Aphrodite’s news that Paris has survived and is at home shows that Helen recognizes the goddess. Her reaction itself is qualified by θάµβησεν, common for the recognition of a divinity in disguise (cf. Il. 1.199 etc.). Helen strongly criticizes Aphrodite for her actions in respect to her and Paris. Aphrodite’s response to Helen is also defined as anger (χολωσαµένη … µή µ᾽᾿ ἔρϱεθε).44 Il. 4.31. Zeus to Hera (+S, +F): he acts surprised when Hera rebukes him for proposing to save Troy. Zeus’ disposition is defined by the phrase τὴν δὲ µέγ᾽᾿ ὀχθήσας. Il. 6.326. Hektor to Paris (+/=S, +F): Hektor finds Paris at home ad- miring his armor instead of out on the battlefield. Hektor’s speech is a reproach (νείκϰεσεν). He represents Paris as the cause of the war and criticizes him as a hypocrite for remaining behind when he used to chastise others for the same thing: σὺ δ’ ἂν µαχέσαιο κϰαὶ ἄλλῳ / εἰ τινά που µεθιέντα ἴδοις στυγερϱοῦ πολέµοιο (6.329–330). Paris recognizes Hektor’s discourse as reproach (ἐνείκϰεσας, 6.333). Il. 9.40. Diomedes to Agamemnon (–S, mF): This is one of only two instances where δαιµόνιε does not open a speech.45 Diomedes grows exasperated with Agamemnon for calling a second retreat (9.17–28). He speaks after a long silence (ὀψέ)46 and characterizes this speech as a fight (σοὶ … µαχήσοµαι, 9.32). δαιµόνιε comes at a transition in Diomedes’ speech to his specific and pointed com- plaint: Agamemnon’s previous characterization of the men as cowards. The contrastive rhetorical question that follows, οὕτω που µάλα ἔλπεαι υἷας Ἀχαιῶν / ἀπτολέµους τ’ ἔµεναι κϰαὶ ἀνάλκϰιδας ὡς ἀγορϱεύεις; suggests incredulity. Il. 13.448. Idomeneus to Deiphobos (=S, –F): One of two uses in the Iliad of δαιµόνιε that is not in-group, and the second that does not open a speech. Idomeneus’ speech is a boast (ἐπεύξατο 13.445). The adverb ἔκϰπαγλον (which perhaps contains the root *plag ‘strike’ with intensive ἐκϰ) suggests that Deiphobos will be bowled over ___ she has with the goddess, on which see above. 44 Cf. Achilles’ use of µή µ᾽᾿ ἔρϱεθε to Priam at 24.560. On Aphrodite see n.42 above. 45 Il. 13.448 (see below) is the second. 46 ὀψέ here seems to signal something approximating frustration on Dio- medes’ part. 512 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 by it.47 Idomeneus’ speech begins with the given name Δηΐφοβ(ε). As at Il. 9.40, δαιµόνιε is transitional. It concludes Idomeneus’ criticism of Deiphobos’ boast, and introduces his own challenge. Deiphobos’ reaction (13.458–459) is to seek support from Aeneas. Janko refers to this instance and that at 13.810 (below) as ironic and sarcastic respectively.48 Il. 13.810. Aias to Hektor (=S, –F): As Hektor repeatedly approaches the front looking for a weakness, Aias calls him out to fight. Aias’ rhetoric in σχεδὸν ἐλθέ· τίη δειδίσσεαι αὔτως / Ἀρϱγείους; suggests Hektor’s brothers Deiphobos (13.55 ff.) and Paris (3.30 ff.).49 Hektor’s response, Αἶαν ἁµαρϱτοεπές, βουγάϊε, ποῖον ἔειπες, “Aias Footinmouth, you bougaie, what are you saying?” (13.824), suggests how we are to read his reaction to Aias’ speech.50 His affectation of surprise implied in ἁµαρϱτοεπές and ποῖον ἔειπες suggests that Hektor matches Aias’ rhetoric of incredulity. Od. 4.774. Antinoös to the other suitors (+S, mF): Antinoös responds to the suitors who openly discuss their plans to kill Telemakhos without regard to news of their plot getting out (4.770–771). Their speech is ὑπερϱφίαλος, indiscreet.51 The gist of Antinoös’ rhetoric is 47 See Chantraine, Dictionnaire 330. 48 R. Janko, The Iliad: A Commentary IV (Cambridge 1985) 104 and 145. 49 δειδίσσεαι is a causative/denominative in yé formed from the iterative stem *dey-dwik-, as Attic δειδίττοµαι suggests (cf. the Sanskrit iterative de- dviṣ-te). The iterative force implies an unfulfilled action, here reinforced by αὔτως. Hektor tries, and fails, to frighten the Greeks. The synchronic functions of many PIE secondary derivatives, largely unproductive, display a fair degree of divergence among the daughter languages. For a synopsis of PIE secondary derivational formations see M. Meier-Brügger, Indo-European Linguistics (Boston 2003) 173–174. 50 But it also likely responds to the Akhaian reading of the bird omen at 13.821–822. βουγάϊε is also used by Antinoös of Iros at Od.18.79. The term is opaque, even in Homer, appearing in only these two passages, where the context involves a challenge and the notion of fear and retreat, and the term is addressed to a challenger. See Chantraine, Dictionnaire 187–188. 51 This term is applied repeatedly to the suitors, but also to Antinoös himself (3.310) and to the Cyclopes (9.106). It seems to be a secondary derivative adjective compound of ὑπέρϱ and φιάλη, a type of vessel—perhaps originally defining something as like liquid overflowing its vessel. See Chan- traine, Dictionnaire 1185. Here it seems to refer to having a “big mouth.” H. PAUL BROWN 513 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 that the other suitors’ talk threatens everyone. Od. 18.15. Odysseus in disguise to Iros (+S, –F): Odysseus has a sud- den altercation with another beggar, Iros, before the suitors. His use of δαιµόνιε responds to Iros’ threats (18.12–13). Odysseus’ speech is characterized by ὑπόδρϱα ἰδών (18.14). Iros’ reaction is anger, χολωσάµενος (18.25). Od. 18.406. Telemakhos to the suitors (+/=S, m/–F): Telemakhos speaks in exasperation at the suitors’ complaints about the dis- guised Odysseus. δαιµόνιοι is followed with a verbal description of them (µαίνεσθε). Whether as an assertion or a rhetorical question, their behavior seems crazy, as if they are drunk, οὐκϰέτι κϰεύθετε θυµῷ / βρϱωτὺν οὐδὲ ποτῆτα (18.406–407). Their response is strongly negative, πάντες ὀδὰξ ἐν χείλεσι φύντες (18.410). Od. 19.71. Odysseus to the servant Melantho (+S, +/mF): Her de- mand for him to leave (19.66–69) threatens his plans. Odysseus, although in disguise, still addresses a subaltern. Again he speaks ὑπόδρϱα ἰδών (19.70). Op. 207. Hawk to the nightingale (+S, –F): She is struggling for no good reason, as he is carrying her off to eat her. The hawk speaks ἐπικϰρϱατέως, used by Akhilleus at Il. 16.67 of the Trojans surround- ing the Greek ships and at 16.81 of how Patroklos should drive them away. h. Bacch. 17. Pirate helmsman to the crew (+/=S, mF): The helms- man, suddenly realizing their captive is a god, attempts to get the sailors to stop binding him. The helmsman likely has some social status (prestige) as his title, κϰυβερϱνήτης, and its specialized role suggest. While some degree of speaker/addressee inclusiveness is signaled by ἀλλ’ ἄγετε and the first-person plural command ἀφῶµεν at 7.22,52 his fear is certainly for himself: µή τι χολωθεὶς / ὄρϱσῃ ἀρϱγαλέους τ’ ἀνέµους κϰαὶ λαίλαπα πολλήν (7.23–24). h. Bacch. 26. The captain to the helmsman (+S, mF): The captain reacts to the helmsman’s apparently unexpected reproach of the sailors: τὸν δ’ ἀρϱχὸς στυγερϱῷ ἠνίπαπε µύθῳ (7.25), which charac- terizes his use of δαιµόνιε in the following line. 52 For examples of ἀλλ’ ἄγετ(ε) plus first-person subjunctive cf. Il. 2.72, 83, 139, etc., discussed below. 514 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 2.b: Speaker disposition between negative and neutral A value n/– was assigned to the disposition of the speaker based on the presence of a combination of negative and neutral or positive polarizing features: Il. 2.190. Odysseus to ὅστις βασιλεὺς (+/=S, mF): Odysseus again feigns surprise at his addressee’s attempt to flee. Odysseus has situational authority via Athena (2.173–181) and because he acts in Agamemnon’s stead. Although criticizing, he addresses the leaders with ἁγνοῖς ἐπεέσσιν (cf. the threats used with the ἄνδρϱες δήµου at Il. 2.200, above). Odysseus’ speech is corrective, οὐ γάρϱ πω σάφα οἶσθ(α) (2.192), and contains an indirect threat, µή τι χολωσάµενος ῥέξῃ κϰακϰὸν υἷας Ἀχαιῶν (2.195), in which υἷας Ἀχαιῶν means ‘you’. Il. 6.407. Andromakhe to Hektor (–S, +F): Not knowing his inten- tions (to find her), she thinks he is leaving the city without seeing her. Her actions and discourse contain a mixture of emotions: anger and sorrow, but also affection. She is described at 6.405–406 as δάκϰρϱυ χέουσα and ἔν τ’ ἄρϱα οἱ φῦ χειρϱὶ, which signal both her emotional state and their degree of intimacy.53 Her tone responds both to Hektor’s smiling (µείδησεν) and to the possibility that he was already leaving. Her criticism (οὐδ’ ἐλεαίρϱεις “you don’t pity us”) implies a tragic future for her and their child. Od. 10.472. The crew to Odysseus (–S, mF): After a year on Kirke’s island, his exasperated companions have to remind Odysseus that they are supposed to be headed home. He introduces their collec- tive speech with µ’ ἐκϰκϰαλέσαντες ἔφαν (10.471) and characterizes them as ἐρϱίηρϱες, while he characterizes himself with the phrase θυµὸς ἀγήνωρϱ (10.466). ἀγήνωρϱ here is probably negatively pola- rized, “too proud,”54 and reflects a degree of self-criticism. Thus 53 See n.21 above and also Besnier, Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1990) 421, on the distinction between emotion, feelings, and affect. While the use of the introductory verb phrase ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἔκϰ τ’ ὀνόµαζε often implies close, even familial relationships (e.g. mother-son, wife-husband, brother-brother), it does not rule out a negatively polarized discourse (cf. Helen to Aphrodite at Il. 3.399, above). 54 So applied to Akhilleus at Il. 9.699 after rejecting Agamemnon’s bribe; to Laomedon at Il. 21.443 (also called ἔκϰπαγλος at 21.452) for refusing to pay Poseidon and Apollo; to the suitors at Od. 1.105. H. PAUL BROWN 515 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 Odysseus represents his crew’s speech as a criticism. Od. 14.443. Eumaios to Odysseus in disguise as a stranger and a beggar (+S, –F): Odysseus has been lying to Eumaios, who remains unconvinced, especially about Odysseus’ return (14.321–323). Nevertheless Eumaios continues to entertain the stranger because he fears Zeus Xenios and pities his guest (14.389). The two argue around the same point repeatedly, with Eumaios growing increas- ingly irritated. He accuses the stranger twice of attempting to buy food with news (14.122–132, 14.166–167) implying that he is un- trustworthy. When Odysseus implies at 14.440–441 that Eumaios, not the gods, has given him what he has received, the swineherd corrects him. The subsequent speech, addressed to the stranger as a δαιµόνιε ξείνων, reflects Eumaios’ frustration and offers a cor- rection. It is not Eumaios who is giving the stranger food: the gods have all the power (δύναται γὰρϱ ἅπαντα, 14.445), whereas he acts thus only under their compulsion, Δία ξένιον δείσας, “because I fear Zeus Xenios” (14.389). Od. 23.264. Odysseus to Penelope (+S, +F): After their reconciliation Odysseus wants them finally to go to bed, but Penelope asks him to elaborate on Teiresias’ prophecy instead, even though she admits she will hear about it later (23.256–262). Her use of οὔ τι χέρϱειον, “not any worse,” here functions as a hedge to temper the potential negative force of her request. Her use of such a hedge suggests how we might expect Odysseus to interpret that request. By beginning his response with δαιµονίη, Odysseus’ language serves to reflect his frustration (cf. Eumaios at 14.443, above). His frustration is best suggested by his next words, τί τ’ ἄρϱ’ αὖ µε µάλ’ ὀτρϱύνουσα κϰελεύεις / εἰπέµεν; implying that she has been repeatedly asking for something he does not want to do. That their conversation con- tinues is suggested by ὣς οἱ µὲν τοιαῦτα πρϱὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρϱευον (23.288). Odysseus’ speech did not silence Penelope or end their encounter. We may compare this with the negative disposition in Antinoös’ speech at 4.774–777 (above), which appears to sub- sequently silence the indiscreet suitors. 2.c: Neutral speaker disposition A neutral value (n) was assigned in four passages: Il. 6.486. Hektor to Andromakhe (+S, +F): Hektor’s speech here is characterized by the verb phrase ἐλέησε νοήσας. He and An- dromakhe have just enjoyed a pleasant moment with their infant 516 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 son (ἐκϰ δ’ ἐγέλασσε, 6.471) but now she seems upset again (δα- κϰρϱυόεν γελάσασα, 6.484). His speech seems designed then to offer comfort. The choice of whether he will live or die is out of his hands; only fate can decide. She should take comfort from this and go back to her work (6.490). Hektor’s use of negatively polarized language need not be read negatively, since (feigned) surprise at a suggested need can offer comfort by suggesting the absence of any actual need. Il. 6.521. Hektor to Paris as they prepare to return to battle (+/=S, +F): Hektor corrects Paris’ preceding apology as unnecessary. Hektor’s tone shifts through the course of his speech, which begins with praise attenuated by litotes, οὐκϰ ἄν τίς τοι … ἔρϱγον ἀτιµήσειε µάχης (6.521–522), but then returns to his previous accusation of cowardice, ἀλλὰ ἑκϰὼν µεθιεῖς τε κϰαὶ οὐκϰ ἐθέλεις (6.523). At the same time he omits the earlier charge of hypocrisy (6.330–331).55 His speech concludes with inclusive first-person plural jussives (ἴοµεν, ἀρϱεσσόµεθα). Od. 23.166. Odysseus to Penelope (+S, +F): After some silence, Odysseus addresses his wife as himself for the first time since his return. After bathing, he returns transformed, αὐτὰρϱ κϰὰκϰ κϰεφαλῆς χεῦεν πολὺ κϰάλλος Ἀθήνη / µείζονά τ’ εἰσιδέειν κϰαὶ πάσσονα (23.156–157).56 When she fails to speak to him, he accuses her hyperbolically of stubbornness.57 His speech concludes with a clearly empty threat to sleep alone: στόρϱεσον λέχος, ὄφρϱα κϰαὶ αὐτὸς / λέξοµαι (23.171–172). Od. 23.174. Penelope to Odysseus (–S, +F): Penelope responds to Odysseus’ charge of stubbornness with the same address, followed 55 See on Il. 6.326, above. 56 There are some problems with the grammar here, and some take these lines to be an interpolation: see J. Russo, M. Fernández-Galiano, and A. Heubeck, A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey III (Oxford 2002) 329. Thus again at 23.162–163. 57 περϱί σοί γε γυναικϰῶν θηλυτερϱάων / κϰῆρϱ ἀτέρϱαµνον ἔθηκϰαν Ὀλύµπια δώµατ’ ἔχοντες (23.166–167). ἀτέρϱαµνον is a hapax and its etymology is uncertain, but the sense seems clear in the context of τετληότι θυµῷ and σιδήρϱεον ἐν φρϱεσὶν ἦτορϱ at 23.172. See Chantraine, Dictionnaire 133. The phrase γυναικϰῶν θηλυτερϱάων appears also at 11.386 where it refers to the female dead, and at Theog. 590 where it describes those women descended from the woman whom Hesiod calls a πῆµα µέγα θνητοῖσι. H. PAUL BROWN 517 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 by a denial of his charge: οὐ γάρϱ τι µεγαλίζοµαι οὐδ’ ἀθερϱίζω / οὐδὲ λίην ἄγαµαι (23.174–175). Her reason is that he appears different from how she remembers him (23.175–176). 2.d: Speaker disposition between neutral and positive A value between neutral and positive (n/+) was ascribed in two passages: Il. 24.194. Priam to Hekabe (+S, +F): Priam asks for advice after be- ing told to go to Akhilleus’ tent to ransom Hektor’s body. Priam’s request for advice, or his desire for support in following Zeus’ directive to go the Greek camp, contains nothing that relates spe- cifically to Hekabe or what she might be doing (24.218–227). His agitation is not directed towards his addressee, as it will be sub- sequently,58 but must concern his task. Since the topic of Priam’s discourse is the gods’ request and what he should do, and not his addressee, it is difficult to see how any evaluation of that addressee could be intended here. As Hooker states, “if anyone is behaving oddly here, it is Priam himself.”59 As in the case of Od. 23.174 (above), Hekabe’s subsequent speech, characterized by the intro- ductory verb κϰώκϰυσεν60 at 24.200 and the introductory particle ὤµοι at 24.201, responds not to Priam’s characterization of her— there has been none—but to his expressed desire to follow the gods’ directive (24.199). If anything, his request suggests that initially he has a positive disposition towards her. Theog. 655. Kottos to Zeus (–/=S, +F): Zeus has freed Kottos and the other Hundred-handers from Tartaros. The relationship between Kottos and Zeus is obscure in both status and familiarity. On the one hand, he is the recent recipient of Zeus’ help (624–626, 639–640), and so subsequently helps Zeus (669–674). On the other hand, as a child of Gaia and Ouranos (147–149) he is Zeus’ uncle. Thus it is possible to read Kottos’ speech in the context of age-defined social 58 At Il. 24.239–246 he addresses and then attacks his surviving sons. 59 Hooker, Homer Iliad III 263. 60 κϰώκϰυσεν is also used of Thetis’ response when she sees Akhilleus con- tinuing to grieve for Patroklos (18.37 and 71). Here, Thetis’ speech is also not a response to an evaluation or criticism of her, either expressed or im- plied, but to the actions of her addressee. 518 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 status (prestige) within the family.61 Zeus’ prior speech (644–653) requesting their help reminds them of their debt to him. Kottos’ re- sponse οὐκϰ ἀδάητα πιφαύσκϰεαι, ἀλλὰ κϰαὶ αὐτοὶ / ἴδµεν (655–656) feels mildly reproachful. Ηowever, this is followed with a promise to fulfill Zeus’ request.62 In light of the positive reaction to Kottos’ speech (664–665), his initial statement should not be read as seri- ously reproachful or corrective. 3. Preliminary Findings These findings, summarized in Table 1, suggest first that the use of δαιµόνιε correlates with higher status speakers (19/26) or with contexts of greater familiarity (19/26). There was a sig- nificant secondary cluster of instances involving lower status speakers, but always either within the family proper (11/26) or within a well-defined social unit such as the οἶκϰος or φῦλον (10/26).63 These patterns are summarized in Graph 1. The significance of the high frequency of in-group uses is empha- sized, despite the small sample size, by Beck’s findings for the Iliad that “one-on-one conversation off the battlefield occurs very rarely.”64 Thus there is a contrastive disparity in the Iliad 61 For example, Hektor exhibits social dominance over his younger brother, Paris. Note also that Zeus’ own speech begins at 644 with the phrase κϰέκϰλυτέ µευ, which suggests the conventionalized language of cer- emony (e.g. when addressing the assembly, Il. 2.67, 7.348, or in connection with the formal duel, Il. 3.86, 456, 7.67), but not exclusively (cf. Il. 3.304). 62 On the relationship between Zeus’ and Kottos’ speeches see Kirk, Iliad 344–345, who characterizes δαιµόνιε here as “oddly used in addressing Zeus,” clearly a reference to the use of δαιµόνιε to characterize another god; cf. Brunius-Nilsson, Δαιµόνιε 29, who voices a similar concern in re- spect to Helen’s use of δαιµονίη to address Aphrodite at Il. 3.399 (see above ad loc.), but then at 31–32 she reads the term as if addressed to a mortal (see n.42). Kirk (323–324) calls its use for a god “more familiar and ironical.” 63 Depending on whether we read Kottos in the Theogony as a member of Zeus’ family or as a member of the λαός in Zeus’ army, there were 18 or 17 instances of +S(tatus), 1 of +/=, 2 of =, and 5 or 6 of –. There were 14 or 13 instances of +F(amiliarity), 2 of +/m, 3 or 4 of m, and 2 of m/–. This gives a total of 22 or 21 instances of in-group use, for a ratio of approximately 11/13. 64 D. Beck, Homeric Conversation (Washington 2005) 272. H. PAUL BROWN 519 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 poet’s preference for battlefield conversation and his preference for using δαιµόνιε in speeches set within the οἶκϰος. When we turn to the parameter of disposition, we see that speaker dispo- sition is largely limited to the negative range, as is summarized in Graph 2.65 Lastly, by drawing correlations between param- eters, other patterns begin to emerge which help to clarify the constraints at work in poets’ use of δαιµόνιε. First, cases showing the greatest social distance correlate with negative disposition. Conversely, the statistically fewer cases of disposition in the n to +/n range are restricted to use within the family. The majority of token instances across the full range of solidarity values showed values for disposition towards the nega- tive end of the scale: 14 (–), 6 (n/–), a ratio of 10/13. These correlations suggest that in general δαιµόνιε in epic corre- sponds to negative disposition on the part of the speaker, al- though not always towards the addressee. And while this seems in keeping with the term’s obvious etymology, we are wise to keep in mind that the referential use of the adjective, post- dating Homer,66 emphasizes that some aspect of its reference is unexpected rather than specifically negative. Vocative noun phrases in general exhibit a strong tendency, noted by both Braun and Dickey, to show considerable divergence from the semantics associated with that noun’s referential uses.67 Dickey suggests that δαιµόνιε appears in later authors to function as a friendship term, similar to terms such as µακϰάρϱιε. However, I note the unusual distribution of δαιµόνιε in her sample. Of the 31 occurrences, 23 come from Plato—a fairly idiosyncratic author —and of these, 20 are spoken by Socrates, who is highly 65 There were 14 instances of –D(isposition), 7 of n/–, 3 of n, and 2 of +/n. 66 Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 139. 67 Braun, Terms of Address 24–29; Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 19; also Brunius-Nilsson, Δαιµόνιε 5. Dickey, after Braun, distinguishes bound refer- ential uses from unbound vocative uses. This distinction seems justified by the frequency with which vocative NPs develop meanings distinct from those of their referential uses. 520 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 idiosyncratic in Plato.68 One reason the preponderance of occurrences come from Plato is not only the size, but more im- portantly, the role that dialogue plays in his surviving corpus. Despite these statistical issues, it does appear that the epic poets’ use of δαιµόνιε differs in significant ways from that of later writers. The term tends to correspond in epic to contexts where the speaker is marked by authority over and familiarity with the addressee, and by a disposition that tends towards the negative end of the scale and which specifically excludes read- ings from the positive end. This distribution turns out to argue in favor of Brunius-Nilsson’s ascription of familiarity to the basic semantics of the term. As the use of δαιµόνιε in epic correlates largely to in-group settings, when we distinguish the immediate family from the larger context of the oikos or phulon we find the greatest range of speaker disposition, and the only instances of δαιµόνιε which are not characterized as negative to some degree (either – or n/–), namely Priam’s address to Hekabe at Il. 24.194 and Kottos’ to Zeus at Theog. 655. 3.a: Problematic cases involving disguise While Eumaios is a servant of Odysseus, when he speaks to him at Od. 14.443 the latter is in disguise, and there is no evidence to suggest that Eumaios views him as other than a ξεῖνος.69 However, Eumaios clearly is offering Odysseus ξεί- 68 See Dickey, Greek Forms of Address 139–140. Noteworthy, in fact, is the uneven distribution of non-specific vocatives (such as φίλε and ἀγαθέ) between Socrates (523 instances) and his interlocutors (56). David Johnson (personal correspondence) points out that many such positively polarized terms are regularly ironic in the mouth of Plato’s Socrates. Wendel, Ge- sprächsanrede 23–24, takes the term to have a largely negative function in Aristophanes—Verachtung, Unwillen, Stauen—similar to how he sees it used in Homer, but with a significant subset of positive readings—Freundschaft, Schmeichelei. 69 Murnaghan, Disguise 108, argues that Eumaios’ loan of his cloak to the disguised Odysseus (14.510–511) constitutes a “covert expression of recog- nition.” However, even if this is so, the story Odysseus tells (14.462–503), which elicits this gesture, follows Eumaios’ use of the address δαιµόνιε H. PAUL BROWN 521 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 νιον in the form of food and lodging, even as he questions him for news of the lost Odysseus. Like the Phaiakians, Eumaios appears to be acting in accordance with xenia, which involves treating the stranger as if he were a potential member of the oikos. Thus we should consider how Eumaios’ speech functions as part of his ongoing attempt to redefine the setting as in- group. For this reason Eumaios in his use of δαιµόνιε at Od. 14.443 was assigned m/– for solidarity. At Il. 3.399 Aphrodite appears to Helen in disguise as an old servant and is addressed as δαιµονίη. But as Helen’s general reaction indicates, the disguise clearly has failed. Helen’s discourse with Aphrodite is presented as if to the goddess and concerns the goddess’ treatment of her. At no point does it ap- pear that Helen speaks as if she believes her addressee is an old servant.70 Odysseus appears in disguise as the speaker in two of the examples (Od.18.15, 19.71). In both cases, there is a legitimate question about whether to read his speech as that of Odysseus ipse or of his persona, the old beggar. At 18.15, Odysseus re- sponds to the beggar Iros’ threats (18.10–13). Iros has been described as attempting to Ὀδυσῆα διώκϰετο οἷο δόµοιο (18.8). The focus placed on the identity of Odysseus as the possessor of the house by the adjective οἷο suggests that we are to keep that identity in mind. At 19.71, the servant Melantho attempts to shame the disguised Odysseus into leaving the house. In this case, her desire threatens Odysseus’ immediate plans (to re- main in the house to provoke the servants and Penelope in preparation for killing the suitors, 19.44–45). Odysseus reacts to a situation which, though this is not expressed, threatens Odysseus as Odysseus. In both cases his discourse varies be- ___ ξείνων (14.443). See also H. Roisman, “Eumaeus and Odysseus—Covert Recognition and Self Revelation?” ICS 15 (1990) 215–238. 70 Kirk’s ascription of familiarity and irony, as with Hooker’s, is predi- cated on the notion that Helen is addressing a god, with whom she has a particular and personal relationship, not a mortal servant (Kirk, Iliad 323– 324; Hooker, Homer Iliad III 98). 522 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 tween one that sticks close to the text of his disguise and one that invokes the specter of Odysseus. His response to Iros mixes an Odysseus-like threat with the possibility that both ξεῖνοι should be able to share the doorway, but then concludes with the boast that invokes his heroic guise as hereditary king (µέγα- ρϱον Λαερϱτιάδεω Ὀδυσῆος, 18.24). In his response to Melantho, Odysseus again stays close to the script as the beggar. How- ever, he concludes by making a claim to status, which he equates to that of Odysseus (19.75–80), followed by a threat that also invokes his persona as Odysseus, viz., that she will suffer at the hands of Penelope or Odysseus (19.83–84). In both these instances of disguise, while the poet has the angered Odysseus remain in character, at the same time his identity as Odysseus occasionally emerges from below the surface to shape his discourse and inform his rhetoric. For our purposes, how- ever, this complicates the task of reading Odysseus here in respect to the parameters of status and familiarity. In the statistics presented above, I have assumed that individuals in disguise speak as themselves, but are addressed according to their sur- face persona—the exception being Il. 3.399, where the context makes it clear that the disguise has failed. 3.b: Problematic social relations The social position of Kottos in the world of the Theogony is ambiguous in a different way. He appears to occupy simultan- eously two different social roles in respect to Zeus. As Hesiod suggests (Theog.147–149) he is of the same generation as the Titans, and so is one of Zeus’ uncles. In many older Indo- European traditions the uncle served as an important ally.71 On the other hand, Kottos has been freed by Zeus specifically 71 The prominence Hesiod gives to the role of Gaia in freeing the Heka- tonkheires suggests a focus on the matrilineal half of their descent (Theog. 626). Cf. the role of allies that the sons of Autolykos—Odysseus’ maternal grand- father—adopt in the boar hunt, especially in taking care of Odysseus after he has been wounded (Od. 19.455–461). On the role of the maternal uncle in Indo-European Omaha-type kinship terminology see P. Friedrich, “Proto-Indo-European Kinship,” Ethnology 5 (1966) 1–36. H. PAUL BROWN 523 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 to fight on his behalf and in his army, and as such functions as a member of the λαός. However, the pattern of usage for epic δαιµόνιε in which +solidarity corresponds to non-negative dispo- sition (Il. 6.486, 521, 24.195; Od. 23.166, 174) suggests that Kot- tos’ speech emphasizes his in-group, avuncular relationship to Zeus over that of a subordinate soldier. That is, all other evi- dence being equal, the sociolinguistic and pragmatic patterns that hold for epic δαιµόνιε in general can serve as evidence for how to read Kottos’ relationship to Zeus in this one instance. 3.c: Out-group use While most instances of δαιµόνιε in epic are found in contexts defined by moderate-to-high levels of familiarity, the majority of which are found in in-group settings, there are three that involve clearly out-group social relations. Iliad 13 offers two examples, Idomeneus’ speech to Deiphobos (446 ff.) and Aias’ to Hektor (810 ff.). In both speeches the rhetoric is similar. The speaker claims that the addressee has made some error. Deiphobos has boasted over Aïdos (13.414–416) when it is Idomeneus who has the greater body count (13.447). At 13.446, ἦ ἄρϱα and the first-plural ἐΐσκϰοµεν suggest the language of inclusiveness (cf. Od. 24.193). The subsequent phrase ἐπεὶ σύ περϱ εὔχεαι οὕτως, / δαιµόνι’72 suggests that Idomeneus’ previous language of solidarity was mock solidar- ity. Aias adopts a similar tone in his speech to Hektor: τίη δειδίσσεαι αὔτως / Ἀρϱγείους; οὔ τοί τι µάχης ἀδαήµονές εἰµεν (13.810–811), where his language is reminiscent of Odysseus’ to the βασιλεύς at Il. 2.190. In both cases, the adoption of language that is associated with in-group (+F) discourse may actually function to suggest not social distance, but a lower degree of addressee power. This is analogous to what one finds in T/V languages, where the use of familiar forms of address 72 The compound conjunction ἀλλὰ κϰαὶ that follows δαιµόνι’ at 13.447 is regularly clause initial, which suggests that δαιµόνιε is enjambed from the previous line. 524 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 functions as a way of defining a –F addressee as also –S.73 In Idomeneus’ speech, when Deiphobos is first addressed, it is with his given name rather than his patronymic, which is sim- ilarly the language of familiarity.74 The ascription of –S to the addressee by the use of +F language is also found in the hawk’s speech to the nightingale (Op. 207 ff.), where the familiarity and status dynamics have already been established by the context. The hawk’s use of δαιµονίη here functions as a test of the reading suggested above for the two out-group uses of δαιµόνιε found in the Iliad (13.448, 810). Here, the use of language ordinarily marked as +F, in a –F setting, what we might call mock familiarity, can have the secondary function of defining the addressee as –S. The as- sumption is that individuals with greater power feel corres- pondingly greater freedom in their use of language, and so the display of such freedom constitutes a claim to power. A related question now arises as to why in settings marked by high degree of familiarity δαιµόνιε is found used by speakers with a wide range of dispositions, while its use in contexts of low familiarity is limited to speakers reflecting negative dispo- sitions. A possible answer is provided by Culpeper’s notion of mock impoliteness, in which language typically perceived as overtly negative does not carry the same negative implication if the relationship is one marked as a familiar one.75 Social co- hesiveness allows a wider range of behaviors to be accepted. Therefore, the use of negatively polarized language, in turn, can serve to signal a context as marked for a high degree of familiarity.76 This is the basis of teasing and banter between 73 Dickey, Language in Society 26 (1997) 11–12, argues against the universal- ity of the specific T/V distinction. See n.30 above, also Brown and Gillman, in Style in Language 253–276, and Braun, Terms of Address 7–24. 74 See n.37 above. 75 J. Culpeper, “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness,” Journal of Prag- matics 25 (1996) 349–367, at 350–353. 76 D. Bousfield, Impoliteness in Interaction (Philadelphia 2008) 136, defines mock impoliteness as language “which, ostensibly, appears to offend the face of H. PAUL BROWN 525 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 individuals who are otherwise socially close, and which then helps to reaffirm that closeness. A higher degree of familiarity allows for a corresponding greater freedom of language use that is analogous to that arising from greater status, and so the display of such freedom constitutes an analogous claim. 4. Conclusion Thus, epic δαιµόνιε seems originally to have been restricted to contexts that were negatively polarized, as the data in this study suggest. In this way, it appears to function as an attitudinal epithet, reflecting the “speaker’s subjective attitude.”77 The re- striction of its non-negatively polarized uses to instances of high speaker-addressee familiarity fits with the general tendencies de- fined under the notion of mock impoliteness. This would further suggest that in epic, δαιµόνιε does not yet function as a friend- ship term in the way that Dickey suggests for later Attic authors. Instead, in these earlier works it appears to have a discourse- marking function that corresponds initially to expressions of surprise on the speaker’s part at the addressee. This discourse function largely holds across the entire set of instances from Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns. Occasionally this surprise may be overtly rhetorical, as in instances of mock impoliteness (Il. 6.486, Od. 23.166 and 174, perhaps Theog. 655) or mock solidarity (Il. 13.448 and 810) or even feigned (Il. 2.190 and 200). Despite the need to distance our reading from any a priori reference to the term’s etymology, the restriction of δαιµόνιε to negatively polarized contexts of surprise corresponds in general to a wider, cross-linguistic tendency in which address forms for divinities can develop into interjections with contrastive dis- course-marking functions. Examples can be seen, for example, in Latin edopol! and mehercule!, French mon Dieu!, or MnE my God! etc. In addition, the distribution of instances of δαιµόνιε across ___ the intended recipient but, which, in practice, serves to strengthen social bonds.” 77 M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar2 (London 1994) 184. 526 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 epic suggests that the felicity conditions on δαιµόνιε restricted its use primarily to contexts marked by (1) high degree of speaker-addressee familiarity, (2) speakers of higher status, and (3) negatively polarized discourse, where it serves to signal the introduction of, or a shift to, such a discourse.78 ———— TABLE 1: Epic δαιµόνιε and Speakers’ Status, Familiarity, and Disposition An asterisk * indicates alternative possible readings of social relations. (D) indicates instances of disguise. Ref. Speaker→Addressee Social Relation S F D Iliad 1.561 Zeus→Hera husband + + – 2.190 Odysseus→Basileus leader + +/m n/– 2.200 Odysseus→ aner demou leader + m/– – 3.399 Helen→Aphrodite Helen→Aphridite (D) devotee *master – + +/m + – 4.31 Zeus→Hera wife + + – 6.326 Hekor→Paris older brother +/= + – 6.407 Andromache→Hektor wife – + n/– 6.486 Hektor→Andromache husband + + n 6.521 Hektor→Paris older brother +/= + n/– 9.40 Diomedes→Agamemnon follower – m – 13.448 Idomeneus→Deiphobos opponent = – – 13.810 Aias→Hektor opponent = – – 24.194 Priam→Hekabe husband + + +/n Odyssey 4.774 Antinoös→Suitors leader + m – 10.472 Crew→Odysseus followers – + n/– 14.443 Eumaios→Odysseus Eumaios→Odysseus (D) servant *host – + +/m m/– n/– 78 I wish to thank the members of the Ergastulum reading group, Nancy E. Brown, Rosemary Peters, and the editors and anonymous reviewers at GRBS for their invaluable help in this project. All translations and other remaining flaws are those of the author. H. PAUL BROWN 527 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 18.15 Odysseus→Iros Odysseus (D)→Iros leader *fellow + = – – 18.406 Telemakhos→Suitors host +/= m/– – 19.71 Odysseus→Melantho Odysseus (D)→Melantho master *stranger + – +/m – – 23.166 Odysseus→Penelope husband + + n 23.174 Penelope→Odysseus wife – + n 23.264 Odysseus→Penelope wife + + n/– Hesiod Th. 655 Kottos→Zeus Kottos (as elder)→Zeus follower *uncle – + m + +/n Op. 207 Hawk→Nightingail opponent + – – Hymns Bacch. 17 Helmsman→Sailors leader +/= +/m n/– Bacch. 26 Captain →Helmsman leader + +/m – ———— Graph 1: Distribution of Parameter Values for Speaker Power and Solidarity 0   2   4   6   8   10   12   14   16   +   +/m   m   m/—   —   T ok en  In st an ce s   Degree  of  Relative  Power  and  Solidarity   Instances of δαιµόνιε by Power and Solidarity Power   Solidarity   528 ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ IN EARLY GREEK EPIC ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 498–528 Graph 2: Distribution of Parameter Values for Speaker Disposition June, 2011 Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literatures Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901 hpbrown@siu.edu 0   2   4   6   8   10   12   14   16   +   +/n   n   n/—   —   T ok en  In st an ce s   Speaker  Disposition   Instances of δαιµόνιε by Disposition Disposition