Démons iraniens Actes du colloque international organisé à l’Université de Liège les 5 et 6 février 2009 à l’occasion des 65 ans de Jean Kellens édités par Philippe Swennen Presses Universitaires de Liège 2015 Representing the Lie in Achaemenian Persia Bruce Lincoln University of Chicago Abstract This paper takes the phrase “the Lie became great” (draѴga… vasaЦ abava) of DB §10 as its point of departure. Noting the peculiar use of the adverb vasaЦ to modify the verb bav-, it argues that this phrase describes the Lie as having emerged from nothingness, then ramified, mutated, multiplied, and spread as a contagious, corrupting evil. Subsequent discussion explores the question of how this process was theorized, focusing on texts (Avestan, Old Persian, and certain episodes in Herodotus) where the Lie is associated with the inability to hear or understand properly and the associated trope of having no ears (cf. Avestan a-sru- and a-guš-). Mutilation of rebels’ noses, ears, tongues, and eyes (DB §§32–33) may be part of the same ideological/symbolic construct, associating the presence of the Lie with defects of comprehension and communication. Résumé Le présent article prend pour point de départ la phrase “la Tromperie devint grande” (draѴga… vasaЦ abava) attestée en DB §10. Après avoir souligné l’emploi particulier de l’adverbe vasaЦ afin de modifier le verbe bav-, on démontre que cette phrase décrit la Tromperie telle qu’émergée du néant, puis ramifiée, transmutée, démultipliée et répandue en tant que démon contagieux et corrupteur. S’ensuit une discussion qui explore la question de savoir comment ce processus fut théorisé. Elle se concentre sur les textes (avestiques, vieux-perses, plus quelques épisodes tirés d’Hérodote), où la Tromperie est associée à l’incapacité d’entendre ou de comprendre correctement ainsi qu’au fait, connexe, de n’avoir pas d’oreilles (avestique a-sru- et a-guš-). La mutilation des yeux, nez, oreilles ou langues des rebelles (DB §§32–33) pourrait être un aspect de la même construction idéologicosymbolique, associant la présence de la Tromperie à des défauts de compréhension et de communication. i Within the Achaemenian corpus of royal inscriptions, demonic entities first appear in DB §10, a passage whose many subtleties demand close attention. Having recounted how Cambyses killed his brother, hid the deed, then embarked on foreign conquests in 525 B.C.E., the text records the consequences of his actions. 136 Bruce Lincoln “When Cambyses went to Egypt, then the people/army became vulnerable to deception (kāra arīka abava) and the Lie became great (draѴga… vasaЦ abava) throughout the land/people — in Persia and Media and other lands/peoples.” 1 Elsewhere, I have shown that the adjective arīka denotes a certain weakness of character or intellect that renders a person susceptible to believing a falsehood. 2 All other occurrences of this word treat situations early in the reign of Darius (i.e. between 522–520) and in that context arīka is always the object of the verb “to be” (Old Persian ah-). 3 Only in DB §10 is it governed by the verb “to become” (Old Persian bav-), signaling that at the earlier historic moment of 525, this state of gullibility was newly emergent, for the change signaled in this passage is qualitative, not quantitative: the people are said to become arīka, not to become more arīka. The causal chain is thus threefold: 1) The King committed certain wrongs, the most grievous of which was hiding the truth from his people; 4 2) The people’s ability to discern reality was consequently diminished and they became vulnerable to falsehood; 3) A worse evil then entered the world, as is signaled in the phrase draѴga… vasaЦ abava, which I, like others, have translated inadequately as “the Lie became great”. The verb of that phrase is bav- once more, and once more its force is inchoative. 5 Its usage here is unusual, however, and that in two ways. First, in the overwhelming majority of cases (47/52), bav- occurs with a predicate that specifies some qualitative transformation of the verb’s subject, as when someone not (yet) a king somehow is installed in the royal office with full power and dignity, or when a previously docile population suddenly acts in ways that make manifest its simmering discontentment and challenge the ruling order. 6 While most translators treat the phrase that concerns us as if it possessed the same kind of predicate (e.g. 1. DB §10: yaθā Kambūjiya Mudrāyam ašiyava, pasāva kāra arīka abava utā draѴga dahyaѴvā vasaЦ abava, utā PārsaЦ utā MādaЦ utā aniyāuvā dahyušuvā. 2. Lincoln, forthc., 45–54. The argument highlights DB §63, where the gullibility denoted by arīka is contrasted with more serious manifestations of the Lie at the level of speech (draѴjana) and that of action (zūrakara), reflecting the familiar Indo-Iranian system of classification by thought, word, and deed, on which see Schlerath 1974, 201–21. 3. The term occurs only in the Bisitun inscription. Twice, it describes aspects of the situation in 522–21 B.C.E. (DB §§8 and 63); twice, that of 521–20 (DB §§72, and 75). In all four passages, use of the verb ah- is stative, denoting a condition that persists unchanged in the present from what it was in the past. 4. Nowhere does the text assert it was wrong for Cambyses to commit fratricide and such an act may have fallen within his royal powers. Hiding the deed may suggest guilt, but more importantly this constitutes a wrongful act itself, for such concealment is an offense against the truth, on which moral and cosmic order depend. One probably should also understand the King’s prolonged absence from the imperial center as a wrongful act that disrupts proper order. 5. On the semantics of this verb and its Indo-Iranian cognates, see Batholomae 1904, col. 927–33, Mayrhofer 1986–2001, II 255–57, and Hendriksen 1948, 206–215. 6. The passages where bav- occurs with a noun, pronoun, or adjective as predicate can be tabulated as follows. In none of these does any adverb appear. Representing the Lie in Achaemenian Persia 137 “the Lie became great”), this is, in fact, a distortion, for vasaЦ is not an adjective, but an adverb. 7 As such, it modifies the action, describing the way the Lie came-intobeing, rather than what it became. ii Most often, vasaЦ occurs with verbs of smiting or building. In both instances, it suggests the vast extent of what has been done and the number of those affected. This is consistent with the accepted etymological analysis, which establishes it as the locative form of an unattested noun (*vasa- or *vas-) derived from the verb *vas-, “to will, wish, desire”. 8 Literally, then, vasaЦ means “at will”, and it is used when one speaks of destroying a great many enemies (DB §29: “my army smote that rebel army at will”, kāra haya manā avam kāram tayam hamiçiyam aja vasaЦ), Subject DB §§10,12, 13, 15, 24, 40, 49, 52, 71, DSm §2, XPf §§3, 4 (2×), XPh §4a, XSe §2 DB §§11, 16 (2×), 21, 24, 33, 35, 38, 40, 49 (2×), 54, 71 DB §10 DB §37, 39, 48, 71, 74 DB §10, DNa §4 (2×) DB §§60, 64, 66 DB §§61, 67 XPh §4d (2×) I (adam), he (haѴ), or Darius Nominal, pronominal, or adjectival predicate King (xšāyaθiya) A land/people (dahyu) or a people/army (kāra) rebellious (hamiçiya) The people/army (kāra) A land/people (dahyu) A piece of information The Wise Lord or the future King The Wise Lord One whose religious comportment has been proper vulnerable to deception (arīka) mine (manā) known (azdā) Friend (daѴštā) your slayer (-taЦ jantā) happy when living and righteous when dead (utā jīva šiyāta… utā mфta фtāvā) DSf §3e A building site Excavated (katam) DNb §§2b and 3b have predicates of a somewhat more complex sort and these passages have not been included in this table. They do not change the general point, however, that in the vast majority of cases, bav- takes a nominal, pronominal, or adjectival predicate and is not modified by an adverb. 7. Translations treating vasaЦ as an adjective include Benveniste – Meillet 1931, 231: “le mensonge est devenu abondant (litt. ‘beaucoup’) dans les provinces”; Asmussen 1960, 46: “blev løgnen stor i landet”; and Lecoq 1997, 190: “le mensonge fut considérable parmi les peuples”. The alternative is no better, for those who preserve the adverbial force of vasaЦ regularly distort the sense of the verb it modifies. Thus, Herzfeld, 1938, 140: “drauga schaltete nach belieben”, Kent 1953, 119: “the Lie waxed great in the country”; Schmitt 1991, 51: “Falsehood grew greatly in the land”. 8. Thus, Benveniste – Meillet 1931, 149 and 230–31, Kent 1953, 33, 35, 66, and 207, Brandenstein – Mayrhofer 1964, 152. Cf. the Avestan vasМ (adverb, based on the singular accusative of vasah<vas-, thus “at will”) and the adverbial use of uštā (singular locative of ušti-, also <vas-) in the blessing formula of Yasna 41.4: “May you aid us long and at will”, rapōišcā tū nМ darәgәmcā uštācā. Bruce Lincoln 138 building many good things (XPf §4: “I built that which is superior at will”, vasaЦ taya fraθaram akunavam), and similar examples. 9 The only other time vasaЦ appears with the verb bav- is a formulaic blessingand-curse Darius addressed to future readers of his inscription at Bisitun. “If you do not conceal this declaration and you proclaim it to the people, may the Wise Lord become a friend to you, may your progeny become great [lit.: come into being at will], and may you live long! If you conceal this declaration and do not tell the people, may the Wise Lord become your slayer and may your progeny not come into being.” 10 The binary structure of this passage is elegant in its simplicity. Either one assists Darius in propagating his message, or one does not. If one does, three blessings follow; if not, two corresponding curses. The verb bav- is used in four of the five anticipated outcomes, always in the optative mood. Of greatest interest to us, however, are the two phrases that speak of progeny, which are identical save for one word. Here, the crucial contrast is between becoming “at will” (vasaЦ) and “not” (mā) becoming (Table 12.1). Relation to the Divine Lineage continuity Personal lifespan Blessings to the Inscription-Proclaimer May the Wise Lord become a friend to you, Auramazdā θuvām daѴštā biyā, And may your progeny come into being at will, utātaЦ taѴmā vasaЦ biyā, And may you live long utā dargam jīvā. Curses on the Inscription-Concealer May the Wise Lord become your slayer, AuramazdātaЦ jantā biyā, And may your progeny not come into being. utātaЦ taѴmā mā biyā. Contrasted blessings and curses in DB §§60–61 (cf. §§66–67). The combination of the verb bav- and the adverb vasaЦ thus denotes a process of transformation that is both quantitative and qualitative, punctual and ongoing: a move from potentiality to existence to proliferation and abundance. Thus, the man whom Darius addresses is imagined to have no children at the moment he reads the inscription, for if he behaves badly, it is promised he will die without offspring and thus be relegated to utter non-being. In contrast, should he behave well, not only will he live a long life, but descendants will follow and his line will flourish for countless generations to come. 9. vasaЦ occurs with the following verbs: jan- “to smite, smash, defeat” (16x); ava-jan- “to kill” (1x); kar- “to build, make, do” (6x); ah- “to be” (3x); bav- “to become” (3x); 1dā- “to give” (1x). 10. DB §§60–61: yadi imām handugām naЦ apagaѴdayāhi, kārahyā θāhi, Auramazdā θuvām daѴštā biyā, utātaЦ taѴmā vasaЦ biyā, utā dargam jīvā. θāti Dārayavauš xšāyaθiya: yadi imām handugām apagaѴdayāhi, naЦ θāhi kārahyā, AuramazdātaЦ jantā biyā, utātaЦ taѴmā mā biyā. Much the same formula recurs at DB §§66–67. Representing the Lie in Achaemenian Persia 139 Beyond this formula of blessing (repeated verbatim at DB §66), the only other passage in which the verb bav- and the adverb vasaЦ occur together is that with which we began: DB §10, which describes the inception of the Lie as an event that has continuing consequences (with the verb in the imperfect). Accordingly, we are meant to understand that in 525 B.C.E., when Cambyses left Persia for Egypt, “the Lie” came into being “at will”, much like the progeny described above. Which is to say, the Lie emerged from nothingness, ramified, mutated, multiplied, and spread: a contagious, corrupting evil. 11 iii The phrase draѴga… vasaЦ abava thus announced the expectation that once extant, the Lie would reproduce and disseminate rapidly. According to Bisitun, the Lie first appeared in 525, and by 521, nine different individuals had falsely claimed to be king of one land/people or another. In each case, it is said “he lied” (adurujiya, from duruj-, the verbal root corresponding to draѴga-) 12 and these lies infected vulnerable populations who consequently turned rebellious. 13 A consistent pattern is traced in these events: deception produces delusion, which produces disorder. 14 At every step, one is meant to perceive the insidious force of the Lie. “Proclaims Darius the King: These are the lands/peoples that became rebellious. The Lie made them rebellious, because these men lied to the people/ army.” 15 Several questions remain, however: Was the Lie theorized as a personified entity or an abstract force? Comparisons to the arch-demons of Zoroastrianism (whether known as Aŋra Mainiiu, Ahriman, or Gannag Mēnōg) suggest the former, but 11. Both the Akkadian and the Elamite versions of DB §10 also stress multiplicity, translating vasaЦ by mādu and iršeikki, respectively, both of which mean “many”. The Akkadian further underscores the point by translating Old Persian draѴga (“The Lie”, singular) by pirѓātu (“lies”, plural). 12. For philological analysis of the related verbal and nominal forms in the various Indo-Iranian languages, see Mayrhofer 1986–2001, II 760–61. 13. DB §52 summarizes the historic narrative developed in DB §§10–51, naming all nine of the rebel-kings and saying of each “He lied (adurujiya). He proclaimed ‘I am X (≠ his given name or lineage). I am King in Y.’ He made Y rebellious”. The same assertions are repeated in the minor inscriptions at Bisitun, which identify the figures depicted in the relief sculpture (DBb-DBj). 14. The formulaic accounts of rebellion that appear in DB §§11–12, 16, 22, 24, 33, 38, 40, and 49 thus follow a regular sequence: 1) A pretender rises up (haѴ udapatatā); 2) he lies to the people/army (kāram [or: kārahyā] avaθā adurujiya); 3) they become rebellious (pasāva kāra… hamiçiya abava); 4) and defect to the pretender (abi avam ašiyava); 5) he seizes the kingship/ kingdom (xšaçam haѴ agфbāyatā); 6) and assumes the title of King (hau xšāyaθiya abava). 15. DB §54: θāti Darāyavauš xšāyaθiya: dahyāva imā, tayā hamiçiyā abava draѴgadiš hamiçiyā akunaѴš, taya imaЦ kāram adurujiyaša. 140 Bruce Lincoln nothing in the Achaemenian inscriptions really speaks to this question. 16 Further: How does the Lie operate? Who is vulnerable to it? Does it exist apart from the act of lying? Or is it always embedded in the practice of certain deceitful humans? iv Avestan texts provide only a bit more information about the Lie’s nature. Still, use of the adjective dušciθra- “of evil seed” calls attention to the Lie’s uncanny ability to multiply and spread, consistent with our reading of the Achaemenian data. 17 This theme also recurs in the longest description of the Lie in any Avestan text, Vīdēvdāt 18.30–59, which exploits the feminine gender of the noun (Avestan druj-) to personify the Lie as female. In response to the question “Do you, alone of all embodied beings, really give birth without consort?”, 18 the Lie describes how she is constantly being impregnated by certain human offenders (e.g., those who refuse to give charity when asked, or men who experience nocturnal emissions), a trope that not only emphasizes her extraordinary powers of reproduction, but suggests an ongoing symbiosis between flawed human actors and impersonalcum-demonic forces, leading to the multiplication of both. v Older Avestan texts shed a bit more light on this symbiosis, calling attention to defects of human hearing that are simultaneously enabling conditions and adverse consequences of the Lie’s assault, a situation signaled by compounds where privative a- is prefixed to verbs of hearing (Avestan a-guš- and a-sru-). 19 Thus, for 16. The usual tendency is to treat the Lie as robustly personified. As Herzfeld 1938, 140 put it, with reference to the warning of DB §55 (“Protect yourself boldly from the Lie”, hacā draѴgā dršam patipayauvā): “Das heißt nicht ‘cave sis mentiare’, sondern fast ‘cave satanam’.” All six occurrences of draѴga- (DB §§10, 54, 55, 56, DPd §3 [2x]) are ambiguous on this point and can accommodate either a personified or a wholly abstract understanding of what “the Lie” represents. 17. The term appears at Yašt 19.94 and 95 only. Translators are divided on the question of whether this adjective signals the Lie’s evil parentage (thus Hintze 1994, 390; Humbach – Ichaporia 1998, 169) or her evil progeny (thus Geldner 1884, 58; Lommel 1927a, 186, and others). Christensen 1941, 14, associated the use of this adjective with the feminine gender of the Lie, but stated the point very delicately, observing that “son individualité est peu marquee dans les Yašts, où elle a conservé, generalement, son caractère abstrait d’anti-type de Rta.” 18. Vīdēvdād 18.30: tūm zī aēuua vīspahe aŋhМuš astuuatō anaiβiiāstiš hunahi. Significantly, the question is posed by Sraoša, the personification of properly attentive hearing and full obedience to the divine word, who is occasionally construed as the Lie’s chief adversary (thus Yasna 57.15 [= Yašt 11.10] and Yašt 11.3). 19. The two relevant verbs seem to differ in their emphasis. Avestan guš-, gaoš- refers chiefly to the physical act of hearing, as is indicated by formation of the word for “ears” on this root (Av. gaoša-, Old Persian gauša-; cf. also Av. gaošāvara-, “earrings”, gaošō.bәrәz- “height of the ear”, and gaošō.srūta- “heard by ear”, on which see Bartholomae 1904, cols. 485–87). In contrast, sru-, srav- encompasses also the social, political, moral, and religious aspects of hearing, as is Representing the Lie in Achaemenian Persia 141 instance, Yasna 31.1 contrasts two audiences addressed by the speaker: the faithful, who find his words “best” (vahištā) and those under sway of the Lie, by whom the same words go “unheard” (a-guštā). “Remembering these rules of yours, we proclaim unheard words (aguštā vacЉ). | To those who destroy the creatures of Truth by the rules of the Lie, | But these (words) are best for those who would be faithful to the Wise Lord.” 20 The hope is that the words in question will transform men of violence. Should the latter remain unable to hear them, however, the Lie’s continuing influence will produce further acts of destruction. The argument is circular, treating what others might differentiate as cause and effect as mutually supportive conditions, both of which are necessary and neither of which has (temporal or logical) priority. Thus, those affected by the Lie develop defects of hearing that make them susceptible to lies and hostile to Truth. The situation is similar in Yasna 44.13, which contrasts proper and improper hearers, i.e. persons who are and those who are not deeply attentive to the teachings of the good religion. 21 Proceeding from this, it thematizes the former group as resistant, and the latter receptive to the Lie, while subtextually implying that the Lie produces the very non-hearing that is the condition of its own hospitable reception. “This I ask you, speak truly to me, Ahura: How do we drive the Lie from ourselves To those full of non-hearing (asruštōiš pәrәnЉŋhō)? They do not delight in associating with Truth. They do not derive pleasure from asking questions of Good Mind.” 22 vi Several Younger Avestan passages use the same vocabulary to develop the same kind of argument, as in the formula that concludes Vīdēvdāt 16 and 17. evident in sravah- “word, speech, teaching”, sruta- “that which is heard, known, celebrated, famed”, and sraoša- “hearkening, attentive hearing, obedience, and the discipline that comes from listening to what has been commanded” (Bartholomae 1904, cols. 1634–36, 1643–44, and 1648). Most fully on the last term, see Kreyenbroek 1985, and Benveniste 1945, 13–14. 20. Yasna 31.1: tā vМ uruuātā marәжtō, aguštā vacЉ sМжghāmahī | aēibiiō yōi uruuātāiš drūjō, ašahiiā gaēθЉ vīmәrәжcaitē | atcīt aēibiiō vahištā, yōi zarazdЉ aŋhәn mazdāi. 21. Regarding the nature of such attentive hearing (“hearkening”) in the Zoroastrian context, see the discussion of Kreyenbroek 1985. 22. Yasna 44.13: taћ θβā pәrәsā, әrәš mōi vaocā ahurā | kaθā drujәm, nīš ahmaћ ā nīš.nāšāmā | tМжg ā auuā, yōi asruštōiš pәrәnЉŋhō | nōiћ aѕahiiā, ādīuuiieiжtī hacМnā | nōiћ frasaiiā, vaŋhМuš cāxnarМ manaŋhō. Also relevant is Yasna 43.12, where the Lie is not named, but where Truth (Aѕa) and Obedience/Attentive Hearing (Sraoša) are associated with the negation of non-hearing (nōiћ asruštā) to set up the following relations. Truth : (Lie) Obedience/Attentive Hearing : (Disobedience/Inattentive Hearing) Not non-hearing (nōiћ asruštā) : Non-hearing (asruštā) Bruce Lincoln 142 “All liars are embodiments of the Lie, who are unconstrained by proper religious choice, who are non-hearing/disobedient (asraošō). All those who are non-hearing/disobedient are untruthful. All those who are untruthful are criminals whose bodies are forfeit.” 23 Other passages from the Younger Avesta use the same signifiers to make the same point, 24 as does a celebrated narrative from Herodotus: the episode in which Otanes charged his daughter Phaidyme to discover if her husband was the rightful King, as he claimed, or an imposter, as Otanes suspected. The problem was difficult, for as we were previously told, not only did the imposter bear the same name as the man he supplanted, but their appearance was near identical. 25 Describing the sole way to differentiate the two, Otanes instructed Phaidyme: “Now, therefore, you must do this. When he lies with you and you know he has fallen asleep, handle his ears. If he seems to have ears, consider that it is Smerdis, son of Cyrus, who lives with you; if not, it is Smerdis the Magus”. 26 Many ingenious explanations have been offered for this curious detail (found only in classical sources). 27 In it, some have seen a folkloric motif taken from Oriental romance, 28 some the result of folk etymology (assuming that the title of Magus was misinterpreted as meaning “no ears,” mā guš), 29 and some imagine it resulting from conventions of Greek art, which gave Persians helmets, crowns, or coiffures that normally covered their ears. 30 More simply, one may understand that whatever its ultimate origin may be, the Herodotean narrative posits the same syllogism we have already observed in Avestan texts. 23. Vīdēvdād 16.18 (= Vd. 17.11): vīspe druuantō tanu.drujō yō adәrәtō.ћkaēšō yō asraošō vīspe asraošō yō anašauuanō vīspe anašauuanō yō tanu.pәrәθō. 24. Cf. Yasna 60.5: “In this house, may Attentive hearing/Obedience (Sraošō) vanquish non-hearing (asruštīm), may peace vanquish non-peace, may generosity vanquish non-generosity, may reverence vanquish irreverence, may the word rightly spoken vanquish the word falsely spoken, and may Truth vanquish the Lie” (vainīt ahmi nmāne sraošō / asruštīm āxštiš anāxštīm / rāitiš arāitīm ārmaitiš / tarōmaitīm aršuxδō vāxš / miθaoxtәm vācim aѕa.drujәm). Also relevant is Yašt 11.2, where the bodily defects associated with the Lie are construed much more broadly: “(Obedience [Sraoša]) is the best repeller of the enmity of the liar (and) of liars. This is the best binder-and-eradicator of the foul eyes, foul understanding, foul ears, foul hands, foul feet, foul mouth of the male liar (and) of the female liar” (taћ druuatō druuatąm auruuaθō.paiti.dārәšta taћ druuatō druuatiiЉsca aši uši karәna gauua duuarәθra zafarә dәrәzuuЉn pairi.uruuaēštәm). 25. Herodotus 3.61. 26. Herodotus 3.69: νῦν ὦν ποίησον τάδε· ἐπεὰν σοὶ συνεύδῃ καὶ μάθῃς αὐτὸν κατυπνωμένον, ἄφασον αὐτοῦ τὰ ὦτα· καὶ ἢν μὲν φαίνηται ἔχων ὦτα, νόμιζε σεωυτὴν Σμέρδι τῷ Kύρου συνοικέειν, ἢν δὲ μὴ ἔχων, σὺ δὲ τῷ Mάγῳ Σμέρδι.” 27. The same detail is found in Justinus 1.91 (where Cambyses, not Cyrus is said to have cut off the ears of the Magus). Nothing similar is recounted in the Bisitun inscription and the accompanying relief actually contradicts the story, Gaumāta’s left ear there being fully apparent. 28. Aly 1921, 99–100. 29. Bertin 1890, 821–22, accepted by How – Wells 1912, I 275. 30. Demandt 1972, 90–101. Representing the Lie in Achaemenian Persia Smerdis, son of Cyrus :: +Ears :: King :: Truth : : : : 143 Smerdis the Magus -Ears Imposter Lie Explaining how it is the imposter came to suffer this defect, Herodotus alludes to an earlier episode, but supplies no relevant details, saying only that “during his rule, Cyrus had cut off the ears of Smerdis the Magus, for no small reason,” suggesting that this was the royal response to some serious offense. 31 An unrelated scene makes clear the crime for which ear-lopping was judged appropriate. “Intaphernes wished to enter (the royal chambers), thinking it was his right to be admitted because he was one of the Seven. 32 The gatekeeper and the usher would not permit it, saying the king was in bed with a woman. Believing that they told lies (pseudea legein), Intaphernes did these things. Drawing his sword, he cut off their ears and noses, and having threaded these on the bridle of a horse, he tied this around their necks and let them go.” 33 The case is clear. One cuts off the ears — perhaps along with other organs of sense and communication — to mark those convicted of lying. In doing so, one gives tangible form to the moral, spiritual, or dispositional defect that inclines such people to falsehood in the first place. For it is their failure to hear and heed the truth that lets the Lie penetrate their minds and bodies, from which vantage point it can reproduce itself as they begin to speak and practice deceit. vii Darius inflicted much the same punishment on two of the rebels he suppressed in his first year on the throne (522–521 B.C.E.), Fravarti and Tritantaxma. 34 31. Herodotus 3.69: τοῦ δὲ Mάγου τούτου τοῦ Σμέρδιος Kῦρος ὁ Kαμβύσεω ἄρχων τὰ ὦτα ἀπέταμε ἐπ᾽ αἰτίῃ δή τινι οὐ σμικρῇ. 32. Herodotus describes the privileges granted to the “Seven Noble Persians” who overthrew Gaumāta at 3.84 and the role played by these men is confirmed by DB §68. See further Gschnitzer 1977 and Briant 1996, 119–27 and 140–49. The episode of Intaphernes is discussed by Gschnitzer at pp. 26–29 and by Briant at pp. 143–44. 33. Herodotus 3.118: οὔκων δὴ Ἰνταφρένες ἐδικαίου οὐδένα οἱ ἐσαγγεῖλαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἧν τῶν ἑπτά, ἐσιέναι ἤθελε. ὁ δἑ πυλουρὸς καὶ ὁ ἀγγελιηφόρος οὐ περιώρων, φάμενοι τὸν βασιλέα γυναικὶ μίσγεσθαι. ὁ δὲ Ἰνταφρένες δοκέων σφέας ψεύδεα λέγειν ποιέει τοιάδε· σπασάμενος τὸν ἀκινάκεα ἀποτάμνει αὐτῶν τά τε ὦτα καὶ τὰς ῥῖνας, περὶ τὸν χαλινὸν τοῦ ἵππου περὶ τοὺς αὐχένας σφέων ἔδησε, καὶ ἀπῆκε. One probably should understand the same accusation of untruth to be implicit when similar mutilations were inflicted on Zopyros (Herodotus 3.154, where the victim’s lies follow his self-mutilation) and the wife of Masistes (Herodotus 9.112, where punishment is inflicted on the malefactor’s mother, rather than the lying/adulterous woman herself). Xenophon, Anabasis 1.9.13 is also relevant, but much more general in its description. 34. It is not clear why these two rebels were treated more harshly than the other seven. It may be relevant that they both — and they alone — claimed to be descendants of Cyaxares, last king of 144 Bruce Lincoln “Fravarti was captured. He was led before me. I cut off his nose, his ears, and his tongue and I put out one of his eyes. He was held bound at my gate. All the army/people saw him.” 35 Here, it is worth noting that the Assyrians and Babylonians do not seem to have employed this same pattern of mutilation, although a copper head was found at Nineveh that had its ears and nose cut off, its left eye gouged out, and its beard broken (conceivably a substitute for the impossible task of extracting a statue’s tongue). Having studied this object closely, Carl Nylander concluded that the damage was inflicted by Median troops when they took Nineveh and overthrew Assyrian power in 612 B.C.E., drawing on an Iranian symbolic repertoire that used (literal) defacement to inflict humiliation and dishonor. 36 Whether or not Nylander was correct in adding this datum to the dossier, we can offer a more precise interpretation of the Achaemenian practices. Although they were surely meant to inflict both shame and pain, their purpose was also didactic. Toward that end, the faces of captured rebels were made into object lessons, on which otherwise invisible forces and processes were given concrete form. Those who beheld poor Fravarti were meant to read from his mangled features that he was both a victim and an agent of the Lie, drawing these further conclusions. 1) This is how the Lie enters and infects men who cannot hear and whose senses are defective. 37 2) This is how the Lie reproduces itself, when such men say garbled things that infect and mislead others. 3) Lies and liars thus produce confusion and violence by misperceiving and misrepresenting the truth. 4) Ultimately, such people suffer retributive violence from the defenders of truth, led by the King, and this restores proper order. Conceivably, Darius and his agents — scribes, as well as soldiers and hangmen — made these points with a sincere and ingenuous belief that inspired confidence in the empire and the rightness of its mission. Like all human subjects, however, they too were capable of misrecognition and misrepresentation. And here opens the epistemological and moral abyss of lies about the Lie, lies about the lying other, and lies about the truthful self… the Medes, thus representing themselves as rightful heirs to the royal line usurped by Cyrus. If valid, this claim was stronger than that made by any other rebel and thus may have demanded particularly emphatic refutation. 35. DB §32: Fravartiš agrabiya anayatā abi mām, adamšaЦ utā nāham utā gaѴšā utā hizānam frājanam utāšaЦ aЦvam cašma āvajam, duvarayāmaЦ basta adāriya, haruvašim kāra avaЦna. The Akkadian version of DB §33 gives the same description of how Tritantaxma was treated, but the Old Persian text omits extraction of his tongue. Presumably, this was a scribal error (thus Lecoq 1997, 200), but the detail may hold some deeper significance. 36. Nylander 1980, 329–33. Martha Roth and Matt Stolper have been kind enough to confirm for me that Nylander was correct in his assessment of the Assyro-Babylonian punitive repertoire. See further, Roth 2007, 207–18. 37. I have discussed the importance of olfactory codes for recognition of the Lie elsewhere. See further Lincoln 2006, 213–241.