266 EDWARD J. BRIDGE speech with a request to be “remembered” by David (v. 31). This should be understood as an indirect request that David marry her 31. By using self-abasement, Abigail accepts a reduction in “face” which has the effect of highlighting David’s proposal as a gen- erous favour. In contrast to Mephibosheth, Joab and Ziba, Abigail’s use of hjpç connotes some obligation to David, empha- sized by the addition of the dependent clause, “to wash the feet of the servants of my lord”. The metaphoricity of this statement is de- bated 32, but I suggest it refers to the inherent obligation of a wife to her husband rather than to treaty language, whether between David’s household and hers, or representative of the Jesse and Calebite clans making a treaty 33. That is, Abigail’s statement, “a female slave to wash the feet of the servants of my lord”, reflects minimal and conventional obligation, if any, and so should be thought of as genuine self-abasement that expresses thanks. To summarize, the use of self-abasement to express thanks to another person primarily serves to downplay the speaker’s “face” (i.e. accept a reduction in respect or honour relative to the hearer) in order to increase the “face” of the hearer (i.e. increase the hearer’s respect or honour relative to the speaker). It has the effect of highlighting the magnanimity of the hearer. Socially, the relationship between receiver and giver is kept unequal, and the giver is shown to be one who has power over the receiver. How- e ve r, the use of self-abasement means the speaker avoids In Abigail’s speech (1 Sam 25,23-31), neither her request that David 31 spare Nabal nor her request that David marry her (if Nabal dies) are expressed directly. The latter is an “indirect request” and the former request is an “off- record ” (i.e. implied) request, which is considered to be very polite (BROWN – LEVINSON, Politeness, 69, 132-145). For example, D.V EDELMAN, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah . 32 (JSOTSS 121; Sheffield 1991) 216, 220, argues hjpç indicates sexual avail- ability on Abigail’s part to David; É. LIPIÑSKI, “ Kinship Terminology in 1 Sam 25.40-42 ”, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 7 (1994) 12-16, here 16, argues that Abigail says she acts like a housemaid; and R. KLEIN, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco, TX 1986) 252, argues Abigail’s language is simply that of hospitality (cf. Gen 18,3; 19,2). E.g. J. LOZOVYY, Saul, Doeg, Nabal and “the Son of Jesse”. Readings 33 in 1 Samuel 16-25 (LHB/OTS 497; London 2009) 176-177; J.D. LEVENSON – B. HALPERN, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages”, JBL 99 (1980) 509- 523 ; M. GARSIEL, The First Book of Samuel. A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat-Gan 1985) 127-128.