Emotion in Politics: Envy, Jealousy, and Rulership in Archaic and Classical Greece by Mara Michelle Kutter A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in The University of Michigan 2018 Doctoral Committee: Professor Sara L. Forsdyke, Chair Associate Professor Ruth R. Caston Professor Arlene W. Saxonhouse Professor Ruth S. Scodel Mara Michelle Kutter [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2545-1599 © Mara Michelle Kutter 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to begin by recognizing and expressing my gratitude to my committee members: Professors Sara Forsdyke, Ruth Caston, Ruth Scodel, and Arlene Saxonhouse. They have provided invaluable and diverse insights while constantly challenging me to expand upon my ideas, and I greatly appreciate the time and energy they have invested over the years. I am especially thankful for the guidance of Sara Forsdyke, without whose positivity and pragmatism this dissertation would not have come to fruition. Any errors are, of course, my own. My family has been a fountain of strength for me throughout my graduate school experience, and I am deeply indebted to them for their ability to establish that delicate balance between offering encouragement and a place to stay if I decided to call it quits. I would like to extend special thanks to my parents for helping me to develop a love of reading and learning from an early age, and for always respecting and supporting my decision to study classics. The stress of graduate school was easier to bear with a partner who could relate by my side. My fiancé, Johann Dahm, earned his doctorate in a completely different field, but I find the dedication and passion he has for his research truly inspiring. I am grateful to him for believing in me, for lending a helping hand, and for showing me all that Ann Arbor has to offer. Lastly, I would be remiss if I neglected to acknowledge Phoebe, my most constant companion throughout this journey. Her unwavering affection and infectious enthusiasm are rays of sunshine on even the bleakest winter day, and I am glad to have had regular and (at times) insistent reminders to put aside my work and my worries and take her outside for a walk. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ii Abstract v Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1. Historical background 1 2. Why should we study emotions? 8 3. What are emotions? 11 4. Limits and difficulties of studying emotions 17 5. Envy and jealousy 22 6. Existing scholarship 28 7. Outline of chapters 31 Chapter 2: Homer and Hesiod 34 Part I: Homer (Iliad and Odyssey) 35 1. Phthonein: envy- and jealousy-free cases? 35 2. Phthonein: discernible envy and jealousy 39 3. Beyond the lexical approach: envy, jealousy, and the gods 42 4. Beyond the lexical approach: envy, jealousy, and kings 47 5. Beyond the lexical approach: anti-envy rhetoric 53 6. Iliad and Odyssey summary 55 Part II: The Homeric Hymns 56 Part III: Hesiod 62 Conclusions and implications 69 Chapter 3: Sophocles 72 1. Why tragedy? 72 2. Tragedy and politics 74 3. Existing scholarship 77 4. Power attracts the envy of others 80 5. Power engenders jealousy in rulers 99 6. Conclusions and implications 105 Chapter 4: Herodotus 111 1. Existing scholarship 112 2. Depiction of tyrants 114 3. Phthonos: a cautionary tale about sole rulership 128 4. Divine phthonos 139 5. Phthonos as a positive force? 148 6. Conclusions and implications 153 iii Chapter 5: Conclusion 154 Part I: Plato and Aristotle 154 1. Plato on envy and jealousy 154 2. Plato on envy, jealousy, and tyranny 160 3. Aristotle on envy and jealousy 165 4. Aristotle on envy, jealousy, and tyranny 176 Part II: General Conclusions 182 1. Envy and jealousy: general characteristics and beliefs 182 2. The overall role(s) of envy and jealousy 186 3. Future research 195 Appendix: Xenophon’s Hiero 197 Bibliography 203 iv ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the association between the emotions of envy and jealousy and the figure of the sole ruler, which is discernible in even the oldest ancient Greek literary texts. These emotions—most easily identified by the Greek words phthonos and zêlos, but in many cases left unnamed on account of an enduring social stigma—are overwhelmingly negative and often dangerous in the works of Homer, Hesiod, Sophocles, and Herodotus, and this is especially true when a ruler is involved. When a ruler acts out of envy or jealousy, there are never direct positive effects for others, and the only instance in which envy or jealousy aimed at a ruler can be considered to produce a societal benefit is when it originates from the divine realm. In such circumstances, it reestablishes proper order by punishing the overly arrogant. There are various scenarios in which envy, jealousy, and rulership appear in combination, and the widening range of permutations in the literature of the fifth century B.C. (and beyond) reflects a heightened anxiety about the precariousness of one-man rule. Already in the works of Homer and Hesiod, it is readily apparent that envy and jealousy typically relate to issues of honor. Accordingly, many rulers attract the envy of their subjects (particularly of potential rivals), and conversely, many rulers exhibit jealousy in their attempts to maintain their position or their status. In the classical period, arguments about why specific individuals do not and why people in general should not envy rulers become increasingly prevalent, as does the idea that overly powerful individuals provoke the jealousy of the gods. There are also depictions of rulers who internalize the commonplace that they are wont to incur envy to such a degree that they either become v excessively cautious and fearful or they dismiss any opposition on the grounds that it stems from envy. In the world of epic, while envy and jealousy were already regarded as untoward and potentially destabilizing emotions, monarchy was still a perfectly acceptable and widespread form of rule. Over time, however, with the Athenians’ hatred of tyranny burgeoning and their influence growing, the association between the emotions of envy and jealousy and rulership was invoked more and more frequently, as democrats and oligarchs alike could use it to justify their distrust of tyranny, and thus the increasingly negative perceptions of tyranny contributed in turn to the further vilification of envy and jealousy. vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION To date, there have been no in-depth studies of the relationship between envy and jealousy and the figure of the sole ruler in ancient Greek literature. Greek authors commonly depicted tyrants and kings as jealous individuals who were often simultaneously the object of envy among their constituents.1 In many instances, these emotions relate to issues of honor and reputation. Thus we can see why the Greeks believed that envy and jealousy played a significant role in shaping the actions and behavior of rulers, since they were often characterized as being especially preoccupied with their image and status. Although the Greeks recognized that envy and jealousy could bring about positive effects in select situations, they focused on the potential and tendency of these emotions to be detrimental and even dangerous. The association between sole rulers and the emotions of envy and jealousy predated the widespread antagonism toward tyranny that developed toward the end of the archaic period, but as their antagonism increased, the Greeks had this association at their disposal to help justify their position. 1. Historical background Tyranny in ancient Greece played a significant role both in shaping the history of the archaic period and in influencing political thought throughout the classical period and beyond. Many city-states experienced tyranny firsthand in the archaic period, but even after it had faded to the peripheries of mainland Greece, it nevertheless remained prominent in political discourse 1 For the similarities and differences between envy and jealousy (as we understand them in English), see p. 22-28. 1 as a theoretical alternate to democracy and oligarchy. The phenomenon of tyranny thus provides an excellent opportunity to explore what the ancient Greeks thought about the nature of one-man rule, the nature of political power more generally, and even the very nature of man. The origins of the words turannos and turannis are not Greek. They first entered the Greek language sometime in the seventh century, and the earliest extant use appears in the poetry of Archilochus, who presents tyranny as something upon which most men look favorably or covetously, rather than with contempt.2 Although one might acquire a tyranny by violent measures, Archilochus nevertheless depicts it as a source of prestige for the man who succeeds in attaining one.3 Not until Solon’s poetry, written in the first half of the sixth century, do we encounter these words being used in an obviously negative context. Like Archilochus, Solon indicates awareness that many men desire to be tyrant, but he sternly cautions against this, depicting tyranny as a catalyst for ruin.4 In the works of the Athenian tragedians of the fifth century, turannos often simply means “king,” although the playwrights do seem to recognize the negative connotations the word is capable of carrying, and they occasionally exploit this meaning.5 Similarly, Herodotus too is familiar with the word’s negative associations. He uses turannos and basileus more or less interchangeably in some cases, but notably, turann- words appear in the speeches of Otanes and Socles as they argue against one-man rule.6 Evidently, the terms were not yet unequivocally and universally negative, but authors in the fifth century could easily utilize their pejorative sense if and when they wanted to. 2 Parker (1998), 150-52. For a discussion of the fragment in which turannis first appears, see p. 5-6. All dates referring to the events or literature of ancient Greece are B.C. unless noted otherwise. 3 Anderson (2005), 204. 4 Parker (1998), 156. 5 Idem, 160. 6 Idem, 164. 2 The shift in the meaning of turann- words from neutral to negative was induced by the changing political milieu: the decades leading up to and following the Persian Wars effected a most notable change in attitudes and thus in semantics as well. In the 540s, more tyrants began looking abroad to Persia for support, rather than to their own city-states (or networks of elites in other nearby city-states), and this detachment bred a certain amount of resentment at home.7 Hippias of Athens forged a strong enough connection with the Persian court that after the Spartans deposed him from Athens, he eventually made his way to Persia and subsequently led Darius’ men to Marathon in 490. Especially given Hippias’ role in matters, the Persian Wars were bound to affect the Athenians’ attitudes toward tyranny, as many of them viewed their success in resisting the Persians as a validation of the institution of democracy over that of autocracy.8 The Persian Wars not only had an impact on how tyranny was regarded moving forward in time, but they influenced how the Greeks thought about and represented tyrannies in the past as well.9 For example, the Athenians were eager to show themselves as staunchly opposed to tyranny, despite the fact that they had acquiesced to living under one for several decades. At some point before the Persian Wars, they commissioned a statue group to be placed in the agora, glorifying Harmodius and Aristogeiton as tyrannicides, even though they neither killed the actual tyrant nor ended the tyranny.10 In 477/6, almost immediately after putting an end to the second invasion, the Athenians commissioned a replacement for the statue group, which Xerxes had seized and removed to Persia.11 The original commission speaks to their dedication to revising Athenian history, but the alacrity with which they replaced the stolen statue indicates a dramatic 7 Anderson (2005), 211. 8 Lavelle (1993), 13. 9 Lewis (2009), 11-12. 10 The exact date of the statue group by Antenor is debated. See Taylor (1981), 34-36. 11 Idem, 37. 3