Читать книгу Frieden stiften - Группа авторов - Страница 10
Notes
Оглавление1 Simmel invests the move from two to three parties with significant transformational powers in the evolution of social and political complexity; see The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Quantitative Aspects of the Group, trans. and ed. KURT H. WOLFF, New York 1950, pp. 118–162. But given Simmel’s usual perspicacity, he does not problematize threeness to the extent one would expect. He assumes dyads and triads are clearly discernible.
2 For an example of this view “in which an impartial facilitator intervenes to assist parties in resolving a conflict” see ANDREW WOOLFORD – ROBERT S. RATNER, Informal Reckonings: Conflict Resolution in Mediation, Restorative Justice and Reparations, New York 2007, ch. 3. Simmel notes that impartiality can be achieved in two main ways, via the independence of the third party, or via his equal attachment to both sides. In high stakes political negotiations in 10th and 11th century Germany one historian finds that the “internuntii or intercessors … were often people of very high status, such as archbishops or dukes. What characterized the activities of these men most of all … was their independence: they were not aligned with either party, but were appointed by both sides as neutrals”; GERD ALTHOFF, Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Medieval Europe, trans. CHRISTOPHER CARROLL, Cambridge 2004, p. 128, translation of his Verwandte, Freunde und Getreue. In Iceland we see intercessors of both types in roughly equal proportion.
3 Old Norse oddi, sharing a root with Old English ord, Old High German ort. For a fuller philology of odd, even, and the marked legalistic underpinning of those throwaway words called “discourse particles” – words like just, right, quite – see WILLIAM IAN MILLER, Eye for an Eye, Cambridge 2006, pp. 11–16.
4 Oxford English Dictionary, s. v. umpire, sb.
5 Simmel argues for the rationalizing effect of impartial mediation, which makes the disputants focus on hard issues, neutralizing the effects of passion. But he also confesses that any story about the rationality of third-party intervention is incomplete without a discussion of tertius gaudens, the advantage (and joy) gained by the third from the misfortunes of the principals. The Sociology of Georg Simmel (above n. 1), pp. 154–162.
6 ERVING GOFFMAN, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York 1959, p. 149. A shill is a person employed to pretend that he is part of the audience in order to lead the legitimate audience members to buy the goods being hawked, or to play the game being offered. The Messenger
7 In the English common law an agent is someone who acts on behalf of another who is called the principal. Principal/agent covers a much wider array of legal relations for which the civil law and German have different names but as far as I know no overarching pair of terms that quite captures the broad English legal category denoted by principal/agent.
8 Aeneid 5.618: re Iris: ‘sese haud ignara nocendi’.
9 VALENTIN GROEBNER, Liquid Assets, Dangerous Gifts: Presents and Politics at the End of the Middle Ages, trans. PAMELA E. SELWYN, Philadelphia 2002, pp. 43 et seq.
10 The Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. ROBERT LATHAM – WILLIAM MATTHES, Berkeley 2000, p. 44.
11 Njáls saga, ch. 44.
12 For a more detailed discussion see the informative and intelligent account in SAMUEL A. MEIER, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (Harvard Semitic Monographs 45), Atlanta 1989, pp. 11 et seq. I am much indebted to this work.
13 The Amarna Letters, ed. and trans. WILLIAM L. MORAN, Baltimore 1992, abbreviated conventionally as EA.
14 These letters are part of a negotiation of a marriage alliance; Tushratta is also disappointed in the amount of gold sent along with the message.
15 See http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.3.1.01# for a remarkable letter from Aradĝu, a messenger, to his lord Šulgi, king of Sumer, complaining about his mistreatment at the hands of one of Šulgi’s vassals, Apillaša, to whom he was to deliver a message. Araĝu is repeatedly humiliated, kept waiting at the gate, then coerced to receive a repast which they spill on him, while he insists that all hospitality must first await the delivery of his message. Apillaša seems to take offense at Aradĝu’s insistence that he state his message before being entertained. Even more remarkable is Šulgi’s response to Aradĝu which tells him to stop complaining, that he well knows that Šulgi must let Apillaša have some room to play the role of a ‘big man’ on his own turf: “If I do not make Apillaša feel just as important as I am, if he does not sit on a throne … if his feet do not rest on a golden footstool, … if he does not kill or blind anyone, if he does not elevate his favorite over others – how else can he secure the provinces?” (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.3.1.02#).
16 Ljósvetninga saga, ch. 7.
17 ALTHOFF, Family, Friends and Followers (above n. 2), p. 158.
18 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, trans. RICHARD CRAWLEY, London 1874, 3.22: “Fire-signals of an attack were also raised towards Thebes; but the Plataeans in the town at once displayed a number of others, prepared beforehand for this very purpose, in order to render the enemy’s signals unintelligible.”
19 Herodotus, 5.18–20, trans. AUBREY DE SÉLINCOURT, Harmondsworth 1954, rev. 1972, pp. 345–347.
20 The Report of Wenamun, trans. MIRIAM LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature: The New Kingdom, Berkeley 1976, p. 226.
21 Gregory, Bishop of Tours, Historia Francorum (HF), ed. BRUNO KRUSCH – WILHELM LEVISON (MGH SS rer. Merov. I 1) Hannover 1951, 7.14.
22 Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd ed., trans. GARY BECKMAN (Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World Series 7) Atlanta 1999, No. 2, §45, p. 18.
23 No. 28, in PIOTR MICHALOWSKI, Letters from Early Mesopotamia, Atlanta 1993, p. 31. Given the not insubstantial risks of a message never reaching its destination, more than one messenger may be sent bearing the same letter. Thus Cicero notes that he received two copies of the same letter from Plancus: “proof to me”, he writes Plancus, “of your conscientiousness, for I realize you are ensuring that your most eagerly anticipated letter is delivered to me” (January 43, Fam. X 5).
24 In the Armana Letters, Rib-hadda, mayor of Gubla, on the central coast of presentday Lebanon, sends his son on a key mission to Pharaoh, but his son is never allowed entry to deliver his message (EA 138).
25 The risks involved in message bearing might in some part help explain the passage in an Anglo-Saxon legal text (late 10th century) that rewards a thegn in the service of another thegn with an increase in the value of his oath if he had “three times gone on errands to the king”; GeÞyncðo, §3, in: FELIX LIEBERMANN, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 vols., Halle 1903–1916, vol. 1, p. 456.
26 A Neo-Assyrian letter reveals messengers had no special status when they were the messengers of the enemy: “when you see his messengers, kill whomever you can kill, and capture whomever you can capture.” In the words of one scholar of the ancient Near East, “diplomatic immunity was at best a messenger’s dream”; MEIER, The Messenger (above n. 12), pp. 76 et seq. No grace, obviously, was allowed the enemy’s couriers and messengers seeking aid from their allies or communicating with segments of their own forces. Athenians capture Spartan envoys on their way to the Persian king and killed them without trial, which Thucydides (2.67) seems to suggest the envoys were entitled to, for legal defenses might have been available to them. In Spain, Caesar had the hands of intercepted messengers cut off before sending them on their way; Caesar, De Bello Hispaniensi 12, ed. A. G. WAY, vol. 3 (Loeb Classical Library 402), Cambridge, MA 1955.
27 This incident makes for one of the sillier scenes among many in the appallingly bad movie ‘300’, 2007.
28 Herodotus, 7.136, p. 486. Guilt was a sentiment more available to the Greeks than it was once fashionable to assume. Medieval annals and chronicles are filled with violations of messenger immunity. In 1183 Henry Plantagenet’s sons, the Young King and Geoffrey, either wounded or killed their father’s envoys to whom they had specifically granted truces; Gesta Regis Henrici, I. 298, cited in: MATTHEW STRICKLAND, War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, 1066–1217, Cambridge 1996, p. 52.
29 Annales regni Francorum, ed. FRIEDRICH KURZE (MGH SS rer. Germ. 6) Hannover 1895, a. 782, p. 60: misit missos suos Adalgisum et Gailonem atque Woradum, ut moverent exercitum Francorum et Saxonum super Sclavos paucos …
30 Herodotus, 5.87–8, p. 372.
31 Joab’s rhetorical brilliance is to be noted here as he rubs David’s face in this distasteful deed much more subtly than Nathan would do later, evincing, at the same time, his disgust at his own part in carrying out David’s orders.
32 The fear the messenger had in delivering bad news was often matched by an omen reader or prophet reading unfavorable omens. (Most interpreters of dreams and signs were understood to be messengers of sorts.) Thus Óspakr in Njáls saga (ch. 156) asks to be held harmless before delivering his unfavorable interpretation of certain omens to Bróðir and when granted a pledge of peace Óspakr still waits until night to deliver his inauspicious reading, “because Bróðir never killed at night”. And more famously Kalchas in the Iliad (1.75–83).
33 Sulle Battaglie, in: THOMAS M. BARKER, The Military Intellectual and Battle. Raimondo Montecuccoli and the Thirty Years War, Albany, NY 1975, p. 156.
34 For another account of a messenger playing to the retainers of the recipient of the message so as to get them to turn on their lord, the recipient, see Herodotus, 3.127–8, pp. 255 et seq. Since many messages were delivered to a large audience it might well behoove the chief recipient to wish to control what his followers were to hear. Septimius Severus thus bribed the messengers sent from Rome bearing a senatorial decree that declared him a public enemy and that ordered his soldiers to abandon him to deliver instead a more favorable message; Historia Augusta, Severus, 5.5 (193 AD).
35 “We are angry with those who rejoice at our misfortunes or simply keep cheerful in the midst of our misfortunes, since this shows that they either hate us or are slighting us. Also with those who are indifferent to the pain they give us: this is why we get angry with bringers of bad news”; Rhetoric 1379b, ed. JONATHAN BARNES, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols., Princeton 1984, vol. 2, p. 2197.
36 The Prayers of Paheri, trans. MIRIAM LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Berkeley 1973, p. 19. I have heard that military officers in the US armed forces charged with delivering the notice of a soldier’s death to his or her parents have found it wise to be escorted by local police to protect them from violent responses.
37 “At that time writing on tablets indeed existed but enclosing them in clay envelopes had not yet been invented. King Ur-Sabab, for Sargon, creature of the gods, wrote a tablet that would cause his own, the bearer’s death …”; quoted in: MICHALOWSKI, Letters (above n. 23), p. 3.
38 Risks arose not necessarily from the contents of a threatening message, but from the mere fact of receiving a message from a particular person. When Naaman, stricken with leprosy, bears a letter from his king, the king of Aram, to the king of Israel (most likely Jehoram son of Ahab), asking him in all innocence to see to a cure for Naaman, because Naaman has heard that there is a prophet in Israel who can effect a cure, the king of Israel rends his clothes in despair. He immediately assumes the request is a pretext for Aram to invade, to exact more tribute, by asking for the impossible (2 Kings 5).
39 ; parshedon. This is an uncertain gloss and the translations vary considerably. It is hapax.
40 HF (above n. 21), 8.44 (legatus); also 7.20, where she is operating more in the Icelandic style of sending an assassin (a cleric in this case) to join the household of the target as a servant.
41 The Law Code of Manu 7.67, trans. PATRICK OLIVELLE, Oxford 2004, p. 110.
42 Suetonius, Life of Augustus, trans. ROBERT GRAVES, The Twelve Caesars, Harmondsworth 1957, ch. 49, p. 75.
43 The Teaching of Vizier Ptahhotep, trans. RICHARD B. PARKINSON, The Tale of Sinuhe and other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940–1640 BC, New York 1997, p. 253.
44 Between Tudhaliya II of Hatti and Sunashshura of Kizzuwatna, in: Hittite Diplomatic Texts, trans. BECKMAN (above n. 23), No. 2, §59, p. 20; see also EA 32 (above n. 13): “in this matter I do not trust Kalbaya. He has indeed spoken it as a word, but it was not confirmed on the tablet.”
45 Montaigne, Essais, 3.1, trans. MICHAEL A. SCREECH, The Complete Essays, Harmondsworth 1987, p. 896. The ancient near eastern messengers, as well as those in Gregory and elsewhere, appear to ventriloquize their messages, relaying them, but assuming the person of the sender, speaking as if he were he. This means that the messenger in his role as his master’s voice could be bowed down too, even though in his propria persona he was lower than the persons bowing to him; he could be the object of displays of deference as if he were the master himself, not merely a whipping boy for his master as has been more in evidence in our examples up till now. See the excellent discussion by MEIER, The Messenger (above n. 12), pp. 152 et seq.
46 Herodotus, 8.110, p. 561.
47 See Bjarnar saga Hítdælakappa; Ívars Þáttr Ingimundarsonar; Völsunga saga, ch. 40. Also William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. ROGER A. B. MYNORS, Oxford 1998, 2.157; and of course see Rostand’s Cyrano de Bergerac, who has no self-serving motives at all. La Rochefoucauld notes another risk: that the messenger’s very desire to gain glory in the successful accomplishment of his mission will lead him to lose sight of the principal’s interest. “The reason why we frequently criticize those who act on our behalf is that almost always they lose sight of their friends’ interest in the interest of the negotiation itself, which they make their own concern for the honour and glory of having succeeded in what they have undertaken” (Maxim No. 278).
48 There are other risks that the sender bears. If his message is spurned, or his messenger insulted, mocked, or killed, the sender might lose face. A wonderful Icelandic tale shows how a cagey king might send a messenger without ever officially acknowledging that the person sent was a messenger, let alone his messenger. In this case Harald Hardradi of Norway simply lets an Icelander who wishes to give a polar bear to King Svein of Denmark carry on with his mission, even though Harald is tempted to confiscate the bear and kill the Icelander. By letting the Icelander continue on his way Harald sends a message, a peace feeler, that has the great virtue of being utterly deniable as having been made should it fail to work. And the Danish king is equally adept at sending the Icelander back to Harald but maintaining all deniability that the Icelander is now his messenger; see WILLIAM IAN MILLER, Audun and the Polar Bear: Luck, Law, and Largesse in a Medieval Tale of Risky Business, Leiden 2008.
49 HF (above n. 21), 5.43.
50 Gregory finally resorts to the best of all arguments, argumentum ad hominem: Arius, he says, died of uncontrollable diarrhea passing his entrails through his anus, a point Gregory makes each of the five times Arius is mentioned in his history. HF (above n. 21), 2.23 (2x), 3.prol, 5.43, 9.15.
51 For a nice example of such nested intercessions see GEOFFREY KOZIOL, Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France, Ithaca, NY 1992, p. 76.
52 But it can work the other way, as the vulgar marriage broker has a kind of privileged access and is often lower in status than the people he goes between.
53 Eyrbyggja saga, ch. 9, Guðmundar saga dy´ra, ch. 3 (where it is stated that he will join against those who do not listen to him). This is intervening at its most basic, to break up an actual fight, or to prevent one which is about to take place from happening.
