ALLAN J R BUIJS M 2007 The Language of Literature

The Language of Literature
Amsterdam Studies in
Classical Philology
Editorial Board
Albert Rijksbaron
Irene J.F. de Jong
VOLUME 13
The Language of Literature
Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts
Edited by
Rutger J. Allan
Michel Buijs
LEIDEN BOSTON
2007
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
ISSN 1380-6068
ISBN 978 90 04 15654 8
Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Bibliography of Albert Rijksbaron ................................................... vii

List of Contributors ............................................................................ xv

Chapter One General Introduction ................................................ 1
Rutger J. Allan and Michel Buijs

Chapter Two Sophocles Trachiniae 1-48, Euripidean
Prologues, and Their Audiences ....................................................... 7
Irene J.F. de Jong

Chapter Three Mythical Chronology in the Odes of Pindar.
The Cases of Pythian 10 and Olympian 3 ........................................... 29
Lukas van den Berge

Chapter Four Discourse Modes and Bases in Vergils Aeneid .... 42
Suzanne M. Adema

Chapter Five Discourse Modes and the Use of Tenses
in Ovids Metamorphoses ..................................................................... 65
Caroline H.M. Kroon

Chapter Six Sense and Sentence Complexity.
Sentence Structure, Sentence Connection, and
Tense-aspect as Indicators of Narrative Mode in Thucydides
Histories ................................................................................................. 93
Rutger J. Allan

Chapter Seven Aspectual Differences and Narrative
Technique: Xenophons Hellenica & Agesilaus ................................. 122
Michel Buijs

vi CONTENTS
Chapter Eight Lopposition aspectuelle Prsent Aoriste
dans la Grande Loi de Gortyne ......................................................... 154
Jean Lallot

Chapter Nine Intentions and Future Realisations
in Herodotus ........................................................................................ 168
Gerry C. Wakker

Chapter Ten Adjective Ordering in Herodotus:
a Pragmatic Explanation ................................................................... 188
Stphanie J. Bakker

Chapter Eleven From Demetrius to Dik. Ancient and Modern
Views on Greek and Latin Word Order ........................................... 211
Casper C. de Jonge

Bibliography ........................................................................................ 233

Index Locorum .................................................................................... 243
General Index ...................................................................................... 249

lllllOokAllY Ol Alllk1 kl}l8lAkON

1966
1ranslation [into uutch] ol lucretius 1, 921-90, ucrmcncus !, 1!-14.

192
ue oriekse genitivus, ampas , 68-.
cnci en u, ampas , 46-4.

194
keview ol c.m.}. 8icking, uccjJstukkcn uit Jc 6ricksc syntaxis, ampas , 20-218.
let praesens historicum in het Oudgrieks, uanJc|incn van nct XXXc NcJcr|anJs
li|c|ccnccnrcs, Amsterdam: lolland Lniversiteitspers, 146-148.

196
1cmpcra| anJ causa| ccnjuncticns in Ancicnt 6rcck. witn 5pccia| kcjcrcncc tc tnc 0sc cj rrri
anJ e in ucrcJctus, Amsterdam: lakkert [uiss., XVll, 22 pp].
low uoes a messenger begin his 8peech7 8ome Observations on the Opening-lines
ol luripidean messenger-8peeches, in }.m. lremer e.a. (eds.), Viscc||anca
1raica in ucncrcm j.c. kamcrucck, Amsterdam: lakkert, 29!-!09.

199
keview article ol l. lettrich, kcntcxt unJ Aspckt in Jcr a|triccniscncn rcsa ucrcJcts,
inua 48, 22!-2.

1980
Ancient oreek kelative clauses and lunctional orammar, in 8. uaalder & m.
oerritsen (eds), inuistics in tnc Nctncr|anJs !-o, Amsterdam: North-lolland
lubl. co., 121-12.
ue semantiek van oriekse hypothetische bijzinnen, ampas 1!, 1!0-146.

1981
kelative clause lormation in Ancient oreek, in A.m. lolkestein e.a. (eds.),
rcJicaticn anJ xprcssicn in luncticna| 6rammar, london: Academic lress, 2!-
29.
ueux notes. lsch. crs. 98, lur. or. 1281, Vncmcsync !4, !88-!90.
1ranslation ol ue led van lippocrates, in l.m. lelin e.a., cn cscnicJcnis van Jc
ouJc wcrc|J. 8rcnncn, laarlem: oottmer, 12!.

1984
1nc 5yntax anJ 5cmantics cj tnc \cru in c|assica| 6rcck. An ntrcJucticn, Amsterdam:
oieben [Xll, 16 pp.].
chariton 8.1.4 und Aristot. cct. 1449b28, ni|c|cus 128, !06-!0.
let oriekse perlectum: subject contra object, ampas 1, 40!-420.

1986
1he lragmatics and 8emantics ol conditional and 1emporal clauses. 8ome lvidence
lrom uutch and classical oreek, wcrkin apcrs in luncticna| 6rammar 1! [0
pp].
1he 1reatment ol the oreek middle Voice by the Ancient orammarians, in l. }oly
(ed.), Actcs Ju cc||cuc ntcrnaticna| 'ni|cscpnics Ju |anac ct tnccrics |inuistiucs
Jans |'Antiuitc. (6rcncu|c !-o), lruxelles: les lditions Ousia, 42-444.
x lllllOokAllY Ol Alllk1 kl}l8lAkON
lnlinitivus en participium als complement in het Oudgrieks: het probleem van
d_oei en nciuei, ampas 19, 1-192.
1aalkunde en de structuur van lerodotus uistcrin, ampas 19, 220-2!1.

198
lebben lerodotus uistcrin een strekking7, 8u||ctin \cN 12.

1988
1he uiscourse lunction ol the lmperlect, in A. kijksbaron e.a. (eds.), n tnc lcctstcps
cj kapna| kunncr, Amsterdam, 2!-24.
waar ben ik nu weer verzeild7!. Odysseus en Nausikaa, in A.m. van lrp 1aalman
lip e.a. (eds.), rcpcmptikcn, AjscnciJsuunJc| w.j.u.l. kcc|, Amsterdam, !6-4!.

1989
Aristct|c, \cru Vcanin anJ luncticna| 6rammar. 1cwarJs a Ncw 1ypc|cy cj 5tatcs cj
Ajjairs, Amsterdam: oieben [ pp.].
wat was luropa, en waarom7, in leerssen, keestman & kijksbaron (1989), 122-1!0
[8ee below].
ue zaak van de draaibank. lur. 8a.1066 vv., ampas 2!, !4!-!4.

1991
6rammatica| ouscrvaticns cn uripiJcs lacchae, Amsterdam: oieben [X, 21 pp.].
uo viennent les diyce7 Quelques observations a propos d diyc` c_civ chez
lomre, in l. ltoublon (ed.), a |anuc ct |cs tcxtcs cn rcc ancicn, Actcs Ju
cc||cuc . cnantrainc (6rcncu|c, -o scptcmurc !-o-), Amsterdam: oieben, 181-19!.

1992
7o lag de held Odysseus .... lnige opmerkingen bij de Odyssee-vertaling van l.
uros, ampas 2, 198-21! [with l.}.l. de }ong].
Vertaling lom. oJ. 6.1-40, in u. den lengst (ed.), \an ucmcrus tct \an cnncp. 6ricksc
cn atijnsc |itcratuur in NcJcr|anJsc vcrta|in. muiderberg: coutinho, 2-2.

199!
8ur quelques dillrences entre oto o (substantil), oto c o (substantil) et o c
(substantil) oto chez lrodote, a|ics 12, 119-1!0.
8ur les emplois de cv et cncv, a|ics 12, 1!1-144.
why is the lncident on 1hrinacia mentioned in oJ. 1, -97, Vncmcsync 46, 28-29.
lnergie, in 1. lijsbouts et. al. (eds.), uc cnrust van urcpa, Amsterdam: kodopi, 61-1.

1994
1nc 5yntax anJ 5cmantics cj tnc \cru in c|assica| 6rcck. An ntrcJucticn (8econd, revised,
edition), Amsterdam: oieben [XlV, 18 pp.].
ll kilo aardbeien 4 gulden. Ol: heelt lo retorische luncties nodig7, in uuuuc|
NcJcr|anJs. .1 cpstc||cn vccr 5imcn c. uik, llO11, 49-2.
Nadrukkelijke en onnadrukkelijke verwijzingen in lerodotus. Over de positie en
lunctie van oto, ampas 2, 2!0-241 [uutch version ol the article in a|ics 12,
(199!), 119-1!0].
lerodotus, de vader van de geschiedvervalsing7, ampas 2, 242-248.

199
luripides 8accnac !-!6, Vncmcsync 48, 198-200.
les valeurs aspectuelles selon A. loutsma, 5yntaktika 8, !-1.
lllllOokAllY Ol Alllk1 kl}l8lAkON xi
Van doortrapt tot losbandig en alles wat daar tussen ligt. ue schurk in de
oriekse roman, in A.m. van lrp 1aalman lip & l.}.l. de }ong (eds.), 5cnurkcn cn
scnc|mcn. cu|tuurnistcriscnc vcrkcnnincn rcnJ Jc ViJJc||anJsc 7cc, Amsterdam:
A.L.l., 9-10.

199
1nc kc||is sccratcs ccJcx, 1he uakhleh Oasis lroject, monograph , Oxlord: Oxbow
[with l.A. worp, 289 pp.].
lurther Observations on lxpressions ol 8orrow and kelated lxpressions in lomer,
in l. lanli (ed.), Atti Jc| 5cccnJc nccntrc intcrnazicna|c Ji inuistica rcca, 1rcntc
!--, 21-242.
lntroduction, in A. kijksbaron (ed.), Ncw Apprcacncs tc 6rcck artic|cs, 1-14 [8ee
below].
Adverb or connector7 1he case ol ie ... c, in A. kijksbaron (ed.), Ncw Apprcacncs tc
6rcck artic|cs, 18-208 [8ee below].
Van steen tot mens. len verkenning van de lomerische wereld, ampas !0, 198-
212.

1998
lsocrates bilinguis lerolinensis, Vncmcsync 1, 18-2! [with l.A. worp].
luripides, uippc|ytus 141, Vncmcsync 1, 12-1.

1999
lethe lor the lathe7 luripides, lacchae 1066-6 again, Vncmcsync 2, 0-10.

2000
8ur les emplois de icyc et cnc chez llaton, in l. }acquinod and }. lallot (eds.),
tuJcs sur |aspcct vcrua| cncz |atcn. lublications de lLniversit de 8aint-
ltienne, 11-10.
keview ol l.-c. oer, Ncativcs anJ Ncun nrascs in c|assica| 6rcck, lranklurt am main,
kraty|cs 4, 20!-206.
ue toekomst in de geschiedenis, in m. 8piering e.a. (eds.), uc wccrspanninciJ van Jc
jcitcn. opstc||cn aancucJcn aan w.u. kccuc|, lilversum: Verloren, 189-200.
8ckncptc syntaxis van nct k|assick 6ricks, lunteren: lermaion [with 8.k. 8lings, l. 8tork
and o.c. wakker, 19 pp.].

2001
ue Xenophon-labriek. londerdvijlig jaar schoolcommentaren op de Anauasis,
ampas !4, 114-140.
ovcr ucpaa|Jc pcrscncn, Amsterdam: Amsterdam Lniversity lress [lnaugural lecture,
29 pp.].

2002
1he Xenophon lactory. One lundred and lilty Years ol 8chool lditions ol
Xenophon's Anauasis, in k. oibson & c.8. lraus, 1nc c|assica| ccmmcntary,
leiden: lrill, 2!-26 [kevised version ol the paper in ampas !4, (2001)].
1nc 5yntax anJ 5cmantics cj tnc \cru in c|assica| 6rcck. An ntrcJucticn (1hird, revised,
edition), Amsterdam: oieben [XVl, 214 pp.].
larl lachmann en zijn methode: het voorbeeld van de klassieke lilologie, in }.
leerssen & m. mathijsen (eds.), ocrtckstcn. Naticna|ismc, cJitics cn cancnvcrmin,
Amsterdam: lnst. voor cultuur en oeschiedenis, 1!-21.

xii lllllOokAllY Ol Alllk1 kl}l8lAkON
200!
A Question ol Questions: pcusis, crctcsis and [longinus] nc ou 18.1, Vncmcsync
6, !!-!6.

2004
1o ti n einai, in l. cassin (ed.), \ccauu|airc curcpccn Jcs pni|cscpnics, laris: 8euilJle
kobert, 1298-1!04 [with }.-l. courtine].
Aspect, in l. cassin (ed.), \ccauu|airc curcpccn Jcs pni|cscpnics, laris: 8euilJle
kobert, 116-144 [with 8. de Vogu and lour other authors].
len dramatisch moment van tweetaligheid, in A. van leerikhuizen e.a. (eds.), uct
8auy|cniscnc urcpa. opstc||cn cvcr vcc|ta|inciJ, Amsterdam: 8alomJAmsterdam
Lniversity lress, 1!-19.
Over ct tu, 8rutc en ander niet bestaand latijn, ampas !, 229-2!4.

200
keview ol o. cooper lll, 6rcck 5yntax, in c|assica| kcvicw , 49-482.

2006
On lalse listoric lresents in 8ophocles (and luripides), in ue }ong & kijksbaron
(2006), 12-149 [8ee below].
1he meaning and word class ol notcov and to notcov, in l. crespo e.a. (eds.),
wcrJ c|asscs anJ kc|atcJ 1cpics in Ancicnt 6rcck, leuven: leeters, 40-441.
8ur l'article avec nom propre, in }.-l. lreuil e.a. (eds.), Tv ioivuvi ndoe iiie.
Vc|ancs pcur 8crnarJ jacuincJ, 8aint-ltienne: centre }ean lalerne, 24!-2.

200
1nc 5yntax anJ 5cmantics cj tnc \cru in c|assica| 6rcck. An ntrcJucticn (1hird edition),
1he Lniversity ol chicago lress: chicago and london [XVl, 214 pp., American
reprint ol the third edition (Amsterdam 2002)].

(cc-)cJitcr cj rccccJins ctc.

198
urcpc jrcm a cu|tura| crspcctivc. uistcricrapny anJ crccpticns. rccccJins cj a
5ympcsium, AmstcrJam, Apri| !-o, Amsterdam: Nijgh en Van uitmar Lniversitair
[with w.l. koobol and m. weisglas, Xll, 1!9 pp.].

1988
n tnc lcctstcps cj kapna| kunncr. rccccJins cj tnc ntcrnaticna| cc||cuium in
ccmmcmcraticn cj tnc !tn Annivcrsary cj tnc uu|icaticn cj kapna| kunncrs
Ausjunr|icnc 6rammatik Jcr riccniscncn 5pracnc, . 1nci|: 5yntaxc (AmstcrJam, Apri|
!-oe), Amsterdam: oieben [with l.A. mulder and o.c. wakker, !86 pp.).

1989
1usscn wctcnscnap cn wcrkc|ijknciJ. urcpcsc cpstc||cn aancucJcn aan Vax wcis|as,
Amsterdam: luropese culturele 8tichting [with }. leerssen and }.l. keestman,
1 pp.].

1991
c.}. kuijgh, 5cripta mincra , Amsterdam: oieben [with }.m. lremer and l. waanders,
XXlV, 81 pp.].

lllllOokAllY Ol Alllk1 kl}l8lAkON xiii
1996
c.}. kuijgh, 5cripta mincra , Amsterdam: oieben [with l. waanders, XXlV, 81 pp.].

199
Ncw Apprcacncs tc 6rcck artic|cs. rccccJins cj a cc||cuium tc ncncur c.j. kuijn cn tnc
cccasicn cj nis rctircmcnt, AmstcrJam, !-e january !--e, Amsterdam: oieben [Vll,
28 pp.].

2006
5cpncc|cs anJ tnc 6rcck anuac, leiden: lrill [with l.}.l. de }ong, 26 pp.].

uu|icaticns jcr 5cccnJary 5cncc|s

19
8A!. 6ricksc |ccran vccr nct \wo, uen laag: 8taatsuitgeverij [co-author].

1982
V1A8A!. cn u|ccm|czin 6ricksc tckstcn vccr nct \wo, leeuwarden: lisma [co-
editor].

198
8A!. ccran 6ricks (oeheel herziene uitgave), leeuwarden: lisma [with l. }ans
and l. 8tork, 2 Vols., 14! & 18! pp.].

1989
ucrcJctcs. itcratcr cn nistcricus, leeuwarden: lisma [co-author, 94 pp.].

1992
5tcpnancs. cn u|ccm|czin uit Jc Antnc|cia 6racca, leeuwardenJmechelen: lisma
[with A. }ansen and ch. lupperts, Vlll, 116 pp.].

1994
Xcrxcs, ccn kcnin Jic zijn rcnzcn nict kcnJc, leeuwardenJmechelen: lisma [co-
author. lindexamenboek 199, 24 pp.].
a||as. ccran 6ricks vccr nct \wo, ueel 1, leeuwarden: lisma [co-author, 112 & 128
pp.].

199
a||as. ccran 6ricks vccr nct \wo, ueel 2, leeuwarden: lisma [co-author, 144, 112 &
112 pp.].

ll81 Ol cON1kllL1Ok8

8uzanne m. Adema teaches latin at Vrije Lniversiteit Amsterdam

kutger }. Allan is a lecturer in the uepartment ol classics at Vrije
Lniversiteit Amsterdam

8tphanie }. lakker teaches oreek at the Lniversity ol oroningen
and leiden Lniversity

lukas van den lerge teaches oreek and latin at the murmellius
oymnasium in Alkmaar

michel luijs teaches oreek and latin at Ltrecht Lniversity and
leiden Lniversity

lrene }.l. de }ong is lrolessor ol oreek at the Lniversity ol
Amsterdam

casper c. de }onge is a lecturer in the uepartment ol classics at
leiden Lniversity

caroline l.m. lroon is lrolessor ol latin at Vrije Lniversiteit
Amsterdam

}ean lallot is lmeritus matre de conlrences a llcole normale
suprieure and Associate member ol the Lmk 9 du cNk8

oerry c. wakker is Associate lrolessor ol oreek at the Lniversity ol
oroningen

clAl1lk ONl

olNlkAl lN1kOuLc1lON

kutger }. Allan & michel luijs

(...) i| ncst p|us ucrc pcssiu|c Jc ccnccvcir |a
|ittcraturc ccmmc unc art ui sc Jcsintcrcsscrait
Jc tcut rappcrt avcc |c |anac, Jcs uc||c cn
aurait usc ccmmc Jun instrumcnt pcur cxprimcr
|iJcc, |a passicn cu |a ucautc: |c |anac nc ccssc
Jacccmpancr |c Jisccurs cn |ui tcnJant |c
mircir Jc sa prcprc structurc (...)
koland larthes, lntroduction a lanalyse
structurale des rcits

Over the last two decades, a signilicant converging tendency has
taken place within the lield ol classical scholarship. On the one hand,
literary scholarship has started to apply more lormal, narratological
models in the interpretation ol classical literary texts. On the other,
linguists expanded their object ol study, which had been restricted
to the grammar ol the scntcncc, beyond the sentence, to the
grammar ol Jisccursc. loth approaches have developed into lull-
blown, sell-contained disciplines within the lield ol classical
scholarship, and have proven their enormous value to the
interpretation ol classical literary texts.
1he llourishing ol these two relatively novel branches ol
scholarship can provide us with an excellent opportunity lor cross-
lertilization between the literary and linguistic study ol the classics.
1his will bring a period to an end in which the two approaches
existed relatively independent ol one another and a lruitlul
exchange ol scholarly lindings was hindered by the lack ol a
common method and a common conceptual apparatus. 1his
collection ol papers aims to be a step in the rapprccncmcnt ol literary
and linguistic scholarship ol classical texts.
lver since their inception, there has been a close conceptual
relation between the narratological and the discourse linguistic
2 kL1olk }. AllAN ANu mlclll lLl}8
paradigm. 1his relation is perhaps best illustrated by oenettes use ol
originally linguistic categories such as tcnsc, mccJ and vcicc to
characterize the relation between the narrated world, narrative, and
narrating. Yet, at the same time, the way in which oenette gave a
new meaning to these terms reveals that the two theoretical
lrameworks are lar lrom constituting an integrated paradigm.
Although there are strong integrative tendencies at work in the
study ol narrative, a seamless connection between narratology and
linguistics on a theoretical level il possible at all still remains a
JcsiJcratum. lowever, even il a complete theoretical convergence
cannot be accomplished, a lruitlul line ol research can still be set up
using a more bottom-up, text-oriented, approach. 8uch an
integrated approach to the text may provide us with the best ol both
worlds, combining the strong interpretative potential ol the
narratological conceptual apparatus with the empirical robustness
ol the linguistic analytical tools.
1his book is dedicated in honour ol Albert kijksbaron on the
occasion ol his retirement lrom the position ol lrolessor ol oreek
linguistics at the Lniversity ol Amsterdam. Albert kijksbaron is one
ol the most prominent representatives ol the strong uutch tradition
ol oreek and latin linguistics. ln his scholarly work, Albert has
always demonstrated the great importance ol linguistic analysis lor
literary interpretation. 8hining examples ol this work are his
grammatical commentary on luripides 8accnac, and his studies on
the expression ol emotions in lomer. ln the same vein, he is
currently working on a text edition and a linguistic commentary on
llatos cn. moreover, Albert kijksbarons work has made a
signilicant contribution to the development ol Ancient oreek
discourse linguistics as a lull-blown scholarly discipline. ln this
connection, one may think ol his important studies on
subordination, tense and aspect, discourse particles, the article and
the anaphoric pronoun. ln order to appreciate the lull range and
depth ol Albert kijksbarons scholarship, a complete list ol his
publications has been included in this volume.
1he contributions to this volume aim to explore the still
considerable tcrra nu||ius between the literary and linguistic
approaches to classical texts. literary-oriented papers have made
use ol recent linguistic insights to support and enrich our
understanding ol the text. linguistically-oriented papers, on the
olNlkAl lN1kOuLc1lON !
other hand, have locused on the analysis ol larger (mostly narrative)
discourse structures, thereby contributing to the over-all
interpretation ol the text. most papers were read at the ccnjcrcncc cn
6rcck anJ atin inuistics (latwijk, 16-1 uecember 200), held in
honour ol Albert kijksbaron and organized through the generous
support ol OllO8, the National kesearch 8chool in classical 8tudies in
the Netherlands. many contributors to this volume were, at some
time, Alberts pupils.
lrene }.l. de }ong challenges the olten articulated view that the
opening ol 8ophocles 1racniniac, spoken by ueianira, is to be
interpreted as a monologue. lnstead, it should be taken as part ol a
dialogue. ue }ong shows that there is a number ol narratological and
linguistic signs (such as narratorial interventions, interactional
particles, and the use ol tenses) in the text that point towards a
narratee. 1he Nurse, present on stage, is expected to identily with
the narratee implied in the text. ly contrast, luripidean prologues
which are called diaphonic monologues by ue }ong imply that the
spectators indentily with the narratee.
1he interpretation ol oreek poetical texts with the help ol
linguistic phenomena is explored lurther by lukas van den lerge,
who addresses the question whether we should, and how we can,
establish the relative chronology ol past events in the myths ol
lindars ytnian 10 and o|ympian !. locusing both on linguistic
leatures, especially aspectual choice, and the content ol the text,
Van den lerge arrives at the conclusion that the event order is
generally not coded in the odes he discusses, and that in ytnian 10,
the chronology is intentionally ambiguous, whereas in o|ympian !,
the chronological order ol events can be inlerred lrom the context.
1his is not to say, however, that lindar, or his audience, did not care
about relative chronology at all. On the contrary, the ways in which
the stories are told in both myths are claimed to rellect the poets
rhetorical aims.
1he next lour papers explore the relationship between the
Jisccursc typc ol the text and its linguistic properties.
8uzanne m. Adema discusses the ways Vergil presents the
narrators wide variety ol activities throughout the AcnciJ. 1aking
the parameters Jisccursc mcJc and uasc as her point ol departure,
Adema distinguishes lour relevant discourse modes on the basis ol
an analysis ol tense usage (rcpcrt, rcistcrin, narrativc and
Jcscripticn), and two bases (tnc timc cj tnc narratcr and rcjcrcncc timc)
lrom which the narrator chooses to use these dillerent discourse
modes. 1herewith, every discourse mode has a transpcscJ variant.
One ol these transposed modes, the Jircctin mcJc, which is the
counterpart ol the rcistcrin mcJc and the most important mode in
the AcnciJ, is then discussed in more detail, the upshot being that the
so-called historic or narrative present should be seen as the basic
tense ol most parts ol the AcnciJ.
1he importance ol indentilying dillerent sections in the AcnciJ
according to discourse modes and bases becomes conspicuously
clear when the results are compared with and contrasted to the
outcome ol caroline l.m. lroons linguistic analysis ol the internal
coherence ol a number ol stories in Ovids Vctamcrpncscs. lroons
starting point is the common literary observation that, compared to
the dynamic way ol narrative presentation in the AcnciJ, the
narrative ol the Vctamcrpncscs is static and pictorial. ly
distinguishing between the discourse modes narrativc, rcpcrt and
Jcscripticn, and by meticulously analysing tense marking, lroon
shows that, as opposed to the AcnciJ, the discourse mode Jcscripticn
prevails in the Vctamcrpncscs, and that in the latter epic, the
advancement ol the story usually takes its base in the time ol the
narrator and not in relerence time. Also in contrast to the AcnciJ, the
historic present in the Vctamcrpncscs generally turns out to be used
as a tense in descriptive passages (vignettes), rather than as a
narrative tense. while connecting this special use ol the present
with a number ol dillerent narrative techniques typical ol Ovid (such
as ambiguity between historic and actualJeternal reading, hint ol
universality, zoom, and lragmentation), lroon shows that it can be
related in all cases to the specilic semantic value ol the present
tense, that is, simultaneity with speakers time.
1o explain the alternation ol a complex, periodic style and a more
simple, paratactic style in 1hucydides, kutger }. Allan demonstrates
the relevance ol two narrativc mcJcs. 1hucydides uistcrics are
typically told in the Jisp|accJ narrative mode. ln this mode, the
narrator is in lull control ol the narration, telling the story lrom a
retrospective point ol view. ly narrating in the immcJiatc mode, on
the other hand, the narrator involves the reader in the drama ol the
actions in a more direct way by pretending to be an eyewitness to
the narrated events, narrating the events as they unlold. 1he
olNlkAl lN1kOuLc1lON
contrast between these two narrative modes accounts not only lor
the variation in sentence complexity, but also lor the distribution ol
connective particles and tense and aspect lorms in 1hucydides
narrative.
michel luijs discusses six parallel passages in two ol Xenophons
works that belong to dillerent discourse types: the historical
narrative uc||cnica and the encomium Acsi|aus, in which narrative
episodes copied lrom the uc||cnica perlorm the lunction ol
illustrations ol Agesilaus qualities as a general. 1hese parallel
passages show dillerences in the aspectual choice ol the verbal
constituents, while the exact same real-world situation is being
described. lt is demonstrated that these dillerences are not to be
regarded as due to mere coincidence, rather, the discourse potential
ol the imperlect is explored to the extent that it should be
considered a device to present an action lrom within the diegetic
world in on-going narrative, thereby indicating that more
inlormation will be conveyed. 1he aorist, which lacks this
continuation-indicating potential, is olten used to indicate
completeness ol a discourse unit. ln the discussion ol the parallel
passages it is shown that Xenophon, as part ol his narrative
technique, deliberately substituted one aspectual lorm lor the other,
adapting the text ol the uc||cnica to his encomiastic aim.
Aspectual choice is also the topic ol Albert kijksbarons long-time
lriend and colleague }ean lallot. le demonstrates a subtle leel lor
the distribution ol present and aorist tense stem lorms in the law
code ol oortyn, the cretan inscription dating lrom the beginning ol
the lilth century lcl, which ollers prescriptions ol private law. Alter
discussing the present inlinitive syntagm ovuvte iivcv as a
general procedural, lormular expression and opposing it to the more
specilic ovuvte iivei, and expanding the analysis ol the aspectual
distribution ol the present and aorist tense stem in (iete)iiu,
lallot linally turns to a |acuna into which both a present imperative
and an aorist imperative ol iiu lit, and ollers a decisive solution
to the problem.
oerry c. wakker takes us lrom the past into the luture in her
contribution on the semantic andJor pragmatic dillerences between
expressions ol luture 8tates ol Allairs in lerodotus, starting oll with
three passages in which luture expressions ol dillerent types seem to
be used without any clear semantic dillerence. while her special
interest goes out to the distinction between the simple luture tense
and ciiu, she also discusses the use ol c_oei - participle,
ouioei and cOciu. wakker shows that in the case ol ciiu the
semantic locus is typically on the prcscnt intention or expectation
(either ol the subject or ol the narrator) not on its other semantic
aspect, that is, the juturc rca|izaticn ol the state ol allairs. ln this
respect ciiu dillers lrom the simple luture, which presents the
luture realization ol the state ol allairs as a lact. lowever, in cases in
which the luture tense can not serve as an alternative, the semantic
locus ol ciiu is not on the intention, but rather on the aspect ol
relative luturity. ln those cases, ciiu can be characterized as a
semi-auxiliary ol the relative luture. lventually, all expressions with
luture relerence turn out to have their own basic meaning, and that
these meanings diller lrom each other. ln every single instance,
then, the texts should be interpreted in accordance with the basic
meaning ol the expression in question.
A more relined and precise interpretation ol lerodotuss text is
also obtained by taking heed ol adjective ordering in the Noun
lhrase, the topic ol 8tphanie }. lakkers paper. 8he discusses the
various possible orderings ol two or more adjectives in one noun
phrase, and identilies the lactors that determine any given pattern.
At the heart ol her analysis is the pragmatic lirst things lirst-
principle, i.e. the most inlormative constituent is expressed lirst.
1his explains the position ol multiple adjectives, whether co-
ordinated or not, vis-a-vis the noun, and the order among multiple
adjectives themselves.
1hat our understanding ol oreek, and latin, word order can
improve lrom ancient rhetorical theory is a lesson we learn lrom the
comparative approach to the subject ollered by casper c. de }onge,
who argues that both the ancient rhetorical and the modern
pragmatic approach regard language primarily as an instrument ol
communication. ln the linal contribution to this volume, ue }onge
bridges the gap between past and present, between oreek and latin,
between linguistic and literary studies, between sentence-level
approach and discourse-centered linguistics, between semantics and
pragmatics, in short: between ancient and modern interest in the
language ol literature.

clAl1lk 1wO

8OllOcll8 1kAcuNA 1-48, lLklllulAN lkOlOoLl8,
ANu 1lllk ALullNcl8
1

lrene }.l. de }ong

1 ntrcJucticn

1he opening ol 8ophocles1racniniac is exceptional:
2
instead ol the
customary dialogue, we lind a long speech by ueanira (48 lines),
who, though another character (the nurse) is present on stage,
nowhere addresses her. 1hus most scholars consider ueaniras rncsis
a monologue, and some suggest that lor once 8ophocles may have
lollowed the example ol luripides, who invariably opens with a
monologue.
!

ln this paper l will try to kill two birds with one stone. Applying
both narratological and linguistic arguments l will question the
monological status ol both (groups ol) texts. l will lirst argue that the
opening ol 8ophocles 1racniniac does imply an audience, a role that
the nurse is supposed to and does slip into. l will then turn to
the luripidean prologue and, using the same type ol criteria, argue
that these texts, too, imply an audience, which in their case can only
be the spectators.

1
l wish to thank audiences in latwijk and maynooth, the editors ol this volume,
and A.m. van lrp 1aalman lip lor comments and suggestions.

2
1hough perhaps not unique: one ol the lragmentary plays ol 8ophocles, the
satyr-play cnncutac, also seems to open with a single long speech.

!
1wo apparent exceptions are the A, which in its present lorm opens with a
dialogue, but which originally may have opened with the customary monologue (a
relic ol which may be lines 49-10) and the (spurious) kn., which according to its
second hypothesis, however, originally did have a monologue opening.
8 lklNl }.l. ul }ONo
2 5cpncc|cs 1rachiniae !-!o

1hough ueanira nowhere addresses her nurse, there are only lew
scholars who doubt that this character is present on stage right lrom
the beginning.
4
ln my view there can be no doubt on this point lor
two reasons. ln the lirst place, the very absence ol any relerence to
the nurse by ueanira exactly suggests her presence, since, in the
words ol 1aplin, a minor character, il his entry is not explicitly
marked, should be supposed to have entered with the superior
character to which he is attached.
ln the second place, the nurse in

her opening speech clearly reacts to the content ol ueaniras speech:
Olten in the past l have seen you bewail with tearlul lamentations
the going lorth ol leracles. Now l must tell you what to do: why
when you have so many sons do you not send one to search lor your
husband7, the going lorth ol leracles relers to ueaniras account ol
leracles absence in 40-48
6
and the many sons relers back to her
mention ol the engendering ol children in !1.

lven though most scholars agree that the nurse is present on
stage, they consider ueaniras speech a monologue, because she
nowhere relers to her: e.g. ueanira does not address the latter [the
nurse], but in a monologue she gives an exposition ol her present
situation as it arose lrom her past lile (lamerbeek 199: 9).
8
ll
ueanira is not addressing the nurse, we are either to imagine that
she is talking to ncrsc|j (ueanira is really talking to hersell, she is
overheard by the nurse (49ll.), and her words are thus seen to be no
artilicial soliloquy, but naturally open expression: lulton 1969: 2)

4
uoubt in 8chwinge (1962: !6), 8chmidt (191: 8): der anwesenden oder
irgendwann hinzutretenden Amme, leiden (1989: !1): ueaniras nurse, who has
listened in silence to part or all ol her mistress lament, and kinger (1998: !): lt is
unclear lrom the text il the Nurse enters with ueianira at the opening ol the
tragedy, though she must be onstage and ready to speak at line 49.

1aplin (19: 8).

6
cl. }ebb (190!: xlix), leo (1908: 14), webster ([19!6]1969: 110).

lndeed, it could be argued that the Nurses v0v in 2 directly echoes ueaniras
v0v in !6: Nestle (19!0: 46). l would even suggest that the obvious echo ol ueaniaras
opening words 1-2 in the Nurses last words 94-6 could be seen as an indication
that she heard her mistress speech lrom the beginning.

8
cl. lurther 8chlegel (1809-11: 109), wilamowitz ([191]19: 116), whitman
([191]1966: 10), lmhol (19: 1), 8chwinge (1962: !-6), lulton (1969: 2), 8chmidt
(191: 8), martina (1980: 2), lasterling (1982: 1).
8OllOcll8 1k. 1-48, lLklllulAN lkOlOoLl8, ANu 1lllk ALullNcl8 9
or that she is addressing tnc auJicncc (8ophokles hat sogar lr die
eigentliche lxposition die lorm des uialogs aulgegeben, die er sonst
immer lestgehalten hat, und ganz wie luripides so olt tut, die von
ihm vorausgesetzte Vorgeschichte in einer im orunde nur an den
7uschauer gerichteteten zusammenhngenden lrzhlung durch die
lauptperson mitteilen lassen: wilamowitz [191]19: 116).
9

lut not all scholars consider ueaniras speech a monologue, not
the least among them }ebb: ueaniras speech is no soliloquy
though it is true that she is rather communing with her own
thoughts than directly addressing the nurse, it gives the cue lor the
Nurses suggestion that lyllus should be sent to seek his lather, and
thus serves to set the drama in motion.
10
we may observe that }ebbs
lormulation comes close to that ol lulton quoted above, and in the
end it seems a matter ol lormulation whether to call ueaniras
speech a dialogical speech with a monological llavour or a
monologue which is heard and reacted to. 1here is one scholar who
has clearly seen this: ls ist kein monolog, denn die alte uienerin ist
entgegegen und antwortet, es ist kein uialog, denn die Anrede lehlt...
ueianira ist mit ihrer Vertrauten zusammen, sie ist gewohn in deren
oegenwart halb mit sich selbst zu reden und zu klagen und immer
wieder in ihrer lrinnerungen zu whlen. (leo 1908: 14).
11
8hould we
leave it at this and conclude that ueanira is holding something
between a monologue and a dialogical speech, is speaking hall to
hersell and hall to the nurse7 lelore attempting to answer this
question, there is one more recurrent issue in the scholarship on
ueaniras speech which deserves our attention.

9
cl. leiden (1989: 21) and kinger (1998: !).

10
}ebb (190!: xlix). cl. Adams (19: 111): 1he play opens with ueianeiras
speech to the Nurse, lirkwood ([198]191: 110-11), and konnet (1969: 42): ll [le
prologue] est lait de deux dialogues de ujanira, dabord avec sa nourrice, puis avec
son lils lyllos. le premier est presque un monologue.... lt may be signilicant that
8chadewaldt ([1926]1966) in his study on the monologue in drama does not include
ueaniras rncsis.

11
cl. lmhol (19: 1): [die lxposition ist] nicht in dramatischer 8ituation
gestaltet, sondern monologisch, obgleich usserlich mit der oestalt der Amme die
gewhnliche dialogisch-dramatische Art des lrologs gewahrt ist.
! kc|aticn witn tnc uripiJcan rc|cucs

8ince luripides invariably opens his plays with a monologue,
scholars have been led to call the opening ol the 1racniniac
luripidean: ueaneira spricht in luripideischer manier das
monologische lrom der 1rachiniae (8chmidt 191: 8).
12
lut many
more scholars have shown that though superlicially or lormally
resembling the luripidean prologue monologue, there are in lact
many dillerences:
1!
whereas a luripidean prologue monologue does
not lorm part ol the action ol the play and gives an analytical and
comprehensive narrative ol the past, the opening rhesis ol the
1racniniac lorms part ol the action (see }ebb, quoted above) and gives
only a highly selective account ol the past. 1hus ueanira recounts
how as a young girl she lived in the house ol her lather Oeneus in
lleuron, was wooed by the river-god Achelous, and saved lrom a
dreaded marriage with him by leracles, who deleated the god in a
light which she explicitly says she cannot describe. 8he next
recounts her married lile with leracles, how they got children
whom he only saw occasionally because he was away so much in the
service ol someone (=lurystheus). 8he now lives in 1rachis as the
guest ol a hospitable man (=the king ol 1rachis, ceyx), alter
leracles had killed lphitus. 8he does not know where leracles is,
who is away already lor lilteen months, and she lears lor him on
account ol a tablet containing an oracle which he gave her belore he
lelt.
ueaniras narrative is conspicuously unspecilic (she does not
mention her own name, as do nearly all luripidean prologue
speakers,
14
nor that ol leracles master or her present host) and lull

12
cl. leo (1908: 14), wilamowitz ([191]19: 116), whitman ([191]1966: 10).
1here is one very dillerent voice: according to 8chwinge (1962: 40-1), it was
8ophocles 1racniniac which lormed the model lor luripides.

1!
cl. }ebb (190!: xlix), keinhardt ([19!!]194!: 4), webster ([19!6] 1969: 110),
Adams (19: 111), lirkwood ([198]191: 290-1), lamerbeek (199: 9-10), 8chwinge
(1962: !4-), konnet (1969: 42, note 2), lulton (1969: 1), martina (1980: -6),
lasterling (1982: 1), lrbse (1984: 291-!). most ol these scholars also claim that there
is a marked dillerence in tone, ueaniras account being much more emotional than
the objective luripidean prologue rncsis. ln my view, the objectivity ol the latter is
only superlicial. 1o argue this point lalls outside the scope ol this paper.

14
1he only exceptions are the nurse ol the VcJ. and the larmer ol the |., who,
however, remain nameless in the entire play.
ol gaps, not only those llagged by ueanira hersell, who cannot
describe the light between Achelous and leracles nor tell where
leracles is now, but also those which the spectators may note and
either lill in on account ol their prior knowledge or bear with them
until they are inlormed in the course ol the play: leracles labours
are only brielly alluded to in the words ietcuovte (!) and dOiuv
(!6), the details ol his light with Achelous are passed over, only to be
lilled in by the chorus in 0-!0, the latal encounter with the centaur
Nessus on their way home alter the wedding is not mentioned at all
and will only be recounted by ueanira in -, why leracles killed
lphitus is again passed over, to be recounted in lull by lichas in 22-
80, and the content ol the tablet with the oracle is not disclosed, and
will be revealed only gradually by ueanira in 6-81 and 164-9.
1

1he allusive, elliptical, and unspecilic nature ol ueaniras speech
not only makes it very dillerent lrom the highly inlormative
luripidean prologues, but also makes it highly unlikely that she is
addressing the spectators, as wilamowitz suggests. 1o the Nurse,
however, who hersell stresses that she has heard ueaniras story
many times belore, the speech is perlectly understandable.
l will now lurther substantiate my claim that ueanira is directing
her rncsis at the nurse. my line ol reasoning is as lollows: ueaniras
rncsis is a narrative,
16
so let us see whether we can detect what
narratologists call signs ol the narratee.
1
ll we lind such signs, we
may assume that even though ueanira does not aJJrcss the nurse
Jircct|y she intends her to listen to her story.
18

1
8uch abstaining lrom a lull exposition is ol course entirely in the 8ophoclean
manner, who likes to lill in his audience on the past ol the plot only gradually.

16
lor the status ol ueaniras rncsis as narrative, see the transition lrom gnomic
opening to narrative with a relative pronoun (common in lomer and lindar), the
opening ol sections with y lollowing alter a headline, and the there isJwas a
manJplace X motil. lor a valuable discussion ol ueaniras narrative as the lirst in a
series ol narratives, see lraus (1991).

1
8ee lrince ([19!]1980) and lor examples lrom classical texts, de }ong-Nnlist-
lowie (2004: passim).

18
8ince ueanira is not aware ol the presence ol spectators, the only narratee she
can reckon with is the intra-dramatic narratee on stage, the nurse. Ol course, the
spectators, as extra-dramatic narratees, hear her story too. 8ee de }ong-Nnlist-
lowie (2004: -8) lor these two types ol narratee in a dramatic narrative and llister
(1988: 4-) lor the absolute autonomy ol dramatic texts: a dramatic utterance is
not addressed to the spectator any more than it is a statement by the author.
4 5ins cj tnc Narratcc !: Narratcria| ntcrvcnticns

1he narrator ueanira uses quite a lew narratorial interventions
(comments, explanations, or metanarrative remarks), which are
aimed at and hence presuppose a narratee.

[1] 8ophocles 1racniniac 9
vqotq ye qv oi noteo, A_ci(ov icyu

my wooer was a river-god, l mean Achelous

ueanira here uses a type ol expression, an explanatory parenthesis
with icyu, which is common in oreek tragedy, and which we always
lind in dialogical speeches. A clear example is: yuveiie
e_eiutov, Avo_qv icyu, moioooiev yqv _q ietoiiqoei,
ycov,.. (l. AnJr. 124!-4), where 1hetis is addressing the old man
leleus.
19
what is the intended ellect ol this type ol narratorial
intervention7 According to lhner-oerth, it serves to add emphasis
to a name.
20
1his may be true lor most cases, but not all,
21
including
our place in the 1racniniac. lor, as l noted earlier, ueanira is very
sparing with her use ol names. kather, the ellect ol her truncating
the sentence (my wooer was a river-god, l mean Achelous instead ol
the normal my wooer was the river-god Achelous) seems to be to
emphasise the lact that she was wooed by a river-god, a terrilying
monster, a marriage with whom she dreaded so much that she would
rather die (16-1).

[2] 8ophocles 1racniniac 21-2!
ie tonov cv dv novuv
oi dv icinoi o ye oi eii oti qv
Oeiuv eteq tq Oce, dv icyoi.

19
cl. lurther Aj. 69, Ant. 198, n. 1261, A. A. 10!, cnc. 22, 1n. 609, 68, l. ucrac|.
642, AnJr. 804, 5upp|. 928, n. 98, 8a. 2!0, 91!. Occasionally, the apposition does not
contain a name but a periphrasis: 8. Aj. 1228, l. |. !!9, uc|. 16!. 1his type ol
expression is also regularly lound in the speeches ol uemosthenes, e.g. 19.12.4,
2!.189., 24..1.

20
lhner-oerth (1898-1904: 1.28!): An der 8telle einer erklrenden Apposition
wird, wenn dieselbe nachdrcklich hervorgehoben werden soll, bisweilen der Verb
icyu (ich meine) gebraucht... lei den 1ragikern wird aul diese weise der ligenname
hervorgehoben.

21
l think ol l. AnJr. 804, 8a. 2!0 (variatic), uc|. 16!.
8OllOcll8 1k. 1-48, lLklllulAN lkOlOoLl8, ANu 1lllk ALullNcl8 1!
And the manner ol his struggle l cannot tell, lor l do not know it.
8omeone sitting there who was not terrilied by the spectacle could
tell (but l was too terrilied to watch).

1his is a very marked narratorial intervention, which consists ol two
elements. ln the lirst place, the narrator ueanira states that she is
not able to tell a certain part ol her story. 1he same happens in lour
other 8ophoclean narratives, and the creation ol delective
narrators seems a specialism ol this playwright.
22
ueanira increases
the ellect ol this narratorial intervention by adding the device ol the
anonymous witness, lor which one could compare |iaJ 1!.!4!-4:

[!] lomer |iaJ 1!.!4!-!44
ie icv Oeouiio cq
o totc yqO(ocicv uv novov o ei_eito.

And very stouthearted would be the man who could then, seeing their
toil, rejoice and not leel sorrow.
2!

1he total ellect ol these two combined comments is to impress on
the narratee the enormity ol the clash between god (in bull shape: cl.
0-8) and hero.

[4] 8ophocles 1racniniac 26-2
tcio cOqic 7c eyuvio ieiu,
c q ieiu.

lut linally 7eus ol battles well ended the battle, il indeed it is well.

we are here dealing with a metanarrative comment, i.e. a comment
through which a narrator comments on his own presentation ol the
story. lts lorm, an elliptic conditional with the particle (, has been
discussed by wakker in her study on the oreek conditional.
24
8he
analyses it as an instance ol an illocutional conditional, i.e., a
conditional which specilies a condition lor the appropriateness or
relevance (lor the addressee) ol the speech act currently perlormed
by the speaker (1994: 2!8). ueanira here comments on the
appropriateness ol her use ol the word ieiu. wakkers analysis

22
1he other instances are Aj. 294-6, Ant. 249-2, o1 121-, oc 66-62. lor
discussion see larrett (2002: 190-222) and ue }ong (lorthc.).

2!
lor discussion in lomer, see ue }ong ([198]2004
2
: -60), lor examples lrom
other authors, see ue }ong-Nnlist-lowie (2004: index).

24
wakker (1994: !6).
conlirms lrom the linguistic side that this narratorial intervention is
directed at a narratee.

5ins cj tnc Narratcc .: ntcracticna| artic|cs

Another sign ol the narratee is the presence ol interactional
particles, i.e. particles which deal with the relation ol a discourse
unit to its non-verbal, communicative environment.
2
ueaniras
speech appears to contain three instances ol such an interactional
particle, namely (:
26

[4] 8ophocles 1racniniac 26-2
c q ieiu.

[] 8ophocles 1racniniac !1
ieuoecv q neie

[6] 8ophocles 1racniniac !6-!
v0v qvii dOiuv tuv nctciq cu,
cvte0Oe q iiote te(oe c_u.

1he repeated presence ol this interactional particle in itsell suggests
once again the existence ol a narratee. lut l can strengthen my
position by comparing ueaniras rncsis with two rncscis the status ol
which as real monologues is not doubted by anyone: the opening
speech ol the watchman in Aeschylus Aamcmncn (1-21) and Ajax
monologue belore his suicide in 8ophocles Ajax (81-6). ln both
these monologues the particle ( does not appear once.
2

2
wakker (199: 211), who bases hersell on lroon (199: 61-2 and 10!-108).

26
1he exact value ol this interactional particle is debated: emphatic (uenniston
194: 20!-229), marking importance (kuijgh 191: 646-, lollowed by wakker 1994:
!1), or evidential, as you and l know (8icking & Van Ophuijsen 199!: 81-! and 140-
1, lakker 199b: -6, 8-9). l am inclined to accept the evidential value, noting
that this value olten will have emphasis as a corrolary ellect.

2
At lirst sight the presence ol ( in lrometheus monologue in A. r. (118)
would seem to be a counterexample. lowever, lrometheus at this stage ol his
monologue has already noticed the presence ol the chorus, which is entering the
orchestra, and is addressing them. 1he one instance ol ( in llectras monologue in
8. |. (10!) seems triggered by the lact that lrom 100 onwards she is apostrophizing
her lather Agamemnon.
what is the ellect ol ( in the prologue ol the 1racniniac7
kegarding line 2 }ebb (190!: ad loc.) sets the tone when writing the
tone ol c ( is sceptical, a view which is lollowed by lasterling
(1982: aJ |cc.). 1his view is correct, provided we realize, with
uenniston and wakker, that this combination does not always, or
automatically, or in itsell express scepsis, but only in certain
contexts.
28
1he presence ol ( in ! is discussed neither by }ebb or
lasterling, which may be due to the lact that, according to uenniston
(194: 224), the use ol ( with or without a temporal or modal
adverb to mark the opening ol the apodosis alter a temporal, causal,
relative, or conditional protasis is exceedingly common in lomer
and lrequent throughout oreek literature. common or not, we may
still ask ourselves what its ellect is, and here l would say that it
stresses the lact, known to both speaker and addressee, that exactly
at the moment when leracles labours were over ueaniras lears
increased. 8he thus points up the strange pattern ol her lile where
every time the situation seems changed lor the best, a new situation
brings new lears.
29
1he third instance ol (, in !1, is again not
discussed by the commentators. }ebb translates And then children
were born to us, lasterling well ((), we had children. loth
translations do not seem to me to do lull justice to the lorce ol the
particle. uenniston hesitates between taking ( with iei or taking
both particles separately.
!0
l leel a slight prelerence lor the second
option: and we JiJ (as you and l know) engender children. ln this
way it prepares lor the contrast to lollow in the relative clause: we
had children, but leracles only very rarely saw them.
ueaniras repeated use ol the interactional particle ( adds to the
plaintive tone ol her speech, which is clearly picked up by the nurse,
who qualilies her words as neviut ouete, tearlul
lamentation (0-1).

28
uenniston (194: 22!), wakker (1994: !6).

29
A good analysis ol this pattern in lraus (1991: 9-81).

!0
uenniston (194: 24-).
6 5ins cj tnc Narratcc 1: 1cnscs

ln ueaniras narrative we lind lor the main storyline three
tenses: aorist (bold), imperlect (underlined), and present (italic):

[] 8ophocles 1racniniac 6-48
qti neto cv cv ooioiv Ovcu
veiouo ct cv licuuvi vuciuv tiov
diyiotov co_ov, c ti Atui yuv(.
vqotq ye qv oi noteo, A_ci(ov icyu,
cv tiov oeioiv c(ptci neto, 10
oituv cveyq te0o, diiot eoio
iuv ciiito, diiot evci( iutci
oun(o ci c eoiiou ycvcio
iouvo iceivovto iqveiou noto0.
toiov cyu vqotqe nooccycvq 1
uotqvo ec ietOevciv cnqu_oqv,
nv tqoc ioitq cncieoOqvei notc.
_ov( cv otc( cv, eocvp c oi,
o iicivo qiOc 7qvo Aii(vq tc nei
o c eyuve t(c ouncouv _q 20
rr`r:ai c. ie tonov cv dv novuv
oi dv icinoi o ye oi eii oti qv
Oeiuv eteq tq Oce, dv icyoi.
cyu ye qqv cincniqycvq o(
( oi to iiio diyo c(cuoi notc. 2
c q ieiu. ic_o ye 1eiici iitov
(uotd eci tiv ci oou oov tcu,
icivou noiqeivouoe. v( ye coyci
ie v( enuOci ieccycvq novov. !0
ieuoecv q neie, o icivo notc,
yptq nu douev citonov ieuv,
onciuv ovov noocic ie(euv dne(
toio0to euv c oou tc iei ouv
ec tov dv cncnc ietcuovt t(. !
v0v qvii dOiuv tuv nctciq cu,
cvte0Oe q iiote te(oe c_u.
c( o ye cite icivo 1itou iev,
qci cv cv 1e_ivi tp evotetoi
(cv( ne ev vaicrv, icivo nou 40
cqicv oc oic niqv co niie
uive eto0 nooeiuv arci_r:at.
o_cov rric:aai ti nq c_ovt viv
_ovov ye o_ eiov, eii qq cie
qve no diioi ncvt ei(uito rvrt. 4
rac:tv ti civov nqe toieutqv co
citov iinuv cotci_c tqv cyu Oee
Ocoi alat nqovq dtc ieciv.

most presents reler to events at the moment ol speaking (40, 42, 4!,
4, 46, 48), but there is one historic present (21), by which ueanira
marks a decisive moment in her story, her rescue by leracles.
!1
lor
the imperlects and aorists l would, combining the ideas ol kijksbaron
and 8icking,
!2
propose the lollowing analysis: the aorists in 8, 19, 26,
!1, !!, !6, and !8 give the main events ol ueaniras story: her wooing
by Achelous, the timely arrival ol leracles, his victory with the help
ol 7eus, their getting children, and leracles killing ol lphitus. 1he
series ol imperlects in 9-16 work out the (complexive) aorist tiov
diyiotov co_ov and scenically paint the wooing by Achelous. ln the
same way the imperlect qqv in 24 evokes the picture ol ueanira
sitting near the place where the two men light lor her hand. Or, in
the terminology ol lakker, using the imperlects ueanira employs a
mimetic mode ol narration, which means that she recounts as an
observer, the observer she has actually been in the past.
!!
1he
imperlect cotci_c in 4, linally, is a typical case ol what kijksbaron
has called the expectation raising use ol the imperlect:
!4
leracles
went away some lilteen months ago and ueanira is eager to know
how the story proceeds, what has happened to him since.
ln my view this carelul and lunctional alternation ol tenses is one
more indication that ueanira is directing her story at someone. ln
particular the historic present in 21 and the scenic or mimetic
imperlects in 9-16 and 24 add reliel to her account: she seems to
relive the past and thereby make her narratee experience it with
her.
!

!1
lor recent views on the historic present, see 8icking & 8tork (199) and
kijksbaron (2006). 1he latter gives the lollowing delinition: An important lunction
ol these presents is to present events that the narrator considers crucial or decisive
lor the development ol the plot (128).

!2
kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 11-14) and 8icking (1996: 4-10).

!!
lakker (199a).

!4
kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 1!-14).

!
l therelore disagree with lraus (1991: 9), when she claims that ueanira
underscores her own distance lrom the happenings and hence their status as
reported rather than experienced events by describing the light as a spectacle
(Oce: 2!), similarly leiden (1989: 21) and kinger (1998: !). l would explain Oce

1rachiniae !-!o: a Ncw Appraisa|

ln 1811 the oerman literary critic A.w. 8chlegel called ueaniras
rncsis wholly uncalled lor.
!6
1his negative appreciation has been
replaced by a more positive one by, amongst others, lulton and
martina.
!
1he above analysis has, l hope, lurther contributed to its
and 8ophocles rehabilitation. ueanira is telling her story not
merely to hersell, but in her narrative is staging a narratee, a role
which she expects the one person present on stage, the nurse, to slip
into. ler speech, therelore, in my view is part ol a dialogue.
A linal question is why 8ophocles gave the prologue this
particular lorm. lere it is instructive to compare the opening ol his
Anticnc: Antigone utters a speech ol ten lines which, though
containing a similar kind ol inlormation as ueaniras (the lile ol
Antigone and lsmene is one chain ol sorrows, the latest ol which is
creons proclamation lorbidding the burial ol their brother
lolynices), has a very dillerent lorm: she starts with a verse-long
address ol lsmene and proceeds with a series ol questions directed to
her. Antigone obviously not merely provides her sister with
inlormation, but wants to persuade her to act upon that inlormation.
Against this background we may better understand ueaniras rncsis:
though she is sharing her leelings with her servant, she is not
actively seeking her help or advice. 1his observation lits in well with
the thesis ol march, who argues that 8ophocles ueanira is a very
dillerent character than she was in the tradition belore him: lrom a
jealous and deliberate murderess he translormed her into woman
who acts loolishly but in all innocence lrom love.
!8
ln order to
impress this new ueanira on his audience he portrays her in the
prologue as a very learlul and inactive person. 1he unusual lorm ol
her opening speech, which though part ol a dialogue, nevertheless

dillerently and connect it with eyuvuv and eovoci in 06, 16: the light over
ueanira is consistently presented in terms ol an (athletic) contest.

!6
8chlegel (1809-11: 109), l quote the lnglish translation lrom 1846. cl. also
whitman ([191]1966: 48): lven the prologue, with its direct expository narrative ...
gives a homely and thoroughly luripidean picture, navin |itt|c tc Jc witn tnc main
acticn. 1his prologue is not still or archaic, it is only a little incranic...(my italics).

!
lulton (1969) and martina (1980).

!8
march (198: 62-).
nowhere directly addresses its interlocutor, lorms an important part
ol this portrayal and reveals 8ophocles sure hand in character
drawing.
l now turn to the second part ol my paper, in which l will discuss
the monological status ol the luripidean prologues, to which
ueaniras speech has so olten been compared.

8 uripiJcan rc|cucs anJ AuJicncc AJJrcss

1he plays ol luripides open with a rncsis by a person who either is
alone on stage or (occasionally) surrounded by non-speaking
protagonists or mutes.
!9
8ince the prologue-speaker is either alone
or, when other persons are present on stage, not addressing them
and relerring to them in the third person (and hence ignoring them
ua interlocutors), his rncsis is generally labeled a monologue. ln his
opening rncsis he gives a lairly comprehensive account ol the
prehistory ol the play about to start. ln most cases these narratives
are unmotivated: the speaker has not been asked by someone to tell
something, as is the case e.g. in the narratives told by messengers,
but spontaneously and without any direct reason embarks on his
story. Only occasionally has luripides attempted some mild lorm ol
motivation, e.g. by making the narrative a 5c|ustcsprcn, a prayer, or
by making prologue-speakers apostrophize part ol the (imagined or
scenically represented) setting and telling their story to these
inanimate objects.
40

8cholars agree that the luripidean prologue-rncsis is an ellicient
instrument which the playwright uses to inlorm his audience about
the particular version ol the myth he is lollowing, his own
adaptations, and olten about the plays Jcncucmcnt. oiving them an
advantage in knowledge luripides could create all kind ol special

!9
ucrac|. (mutes), 5upp|. (mutes, chorus, Adrastus), ul (mutes, megara), 1rc.
(lecuba), or. (sleeping Orestes).

40
5c|ustcsprcn: VcJ. (cl. 1), prayer: 5upp|., speaking to the air: 1 (cl. 4!),
apostrophe: A|c., AnJr., |., n.
ellects in the ensuing play, in which we see characters act who are
not endowed with this vital inlormation, usually at their cost.
41

1here is less consensus, however, on the exact status ol the
prologue-rncsis. most scholars assume that the prologue-rncsis is
directed at the spectators, in other words, that this is a case where
the absolute autonomy ol a dramatic utterance is ruptured (see
note 18) and a dramatic character does acknowledge the presence ol
the spectators. 8ome assume direct audience address (1-!), others
indirect audience address (4-):
1) v0v c u_u t( Oct( nooieicyctei, now he
[loseidon] in a cold manner speaks to the audience
(scholion ad 1rc !6).
2) the prologue is spoken to no-one but the audience in the
theatre (ooldhill 1986: 246).
!) lm lrolog wendet sich der uichter unmittelbar an die
7uschauer (lohlenz [19!0]194: 4!6).
4) uie in ihnen [lrologen] enthaltenene lnlormationen sind
deutlich, ja olt berdeutlich als lnlormationen markiert, die
im inneren lommunikationssystem keine lunktion haben,
also als Adressaten auch wenn nie eine ausdrckliche
wendung aJ spcctatcrcs erlolgt das lublikum ansprechen
(uanek 1992: 19-20).
) Although the audience is nowhere explicitly addressed in
oreek tragedy there are many places in the prologues ol
luripides where the distinction between direct address to
the audience and a manner ol speech which the audience
could interpret as addressed to itsell is ol no importance in
the practical circumstances ol theatrical perlormance
(lunter 198: 2).
42

41
cl., e.g. lessing ([169]196!: 19-): increases tragic nature and raises the
spectators pity, orube ([1941]1961: 64), lrbse (1984: -8): uer rechtzeitig augeklrte
7uschauer nimmt gewissermassen einen erhhten 8tandpunkt ein, von dem aus er
den lortgang des 8pieles mit innerer Lberlegenheit verlolgen und beurteilen kann,
ohne indessen sein mitleid mit der tragischen Verblendung des landelnden zu
verlieren, uanek (1992: !-6).

42
cl. lurther, e.g.. lessing ([169]196!: 194), leo (1908: 2), 8chadewaldt
([1926]1966: 10), lrbse (1984: 64), cropp (2000: 11).
1here are also scholars, however, notably lain and 1aplin, who claim
that Attic drama does not leature any lorm ol audience address, and
hence reject positions 1-!, and, it would seem, also positions 4-.
4!

ln the lollowing l will delend the position ol indirect audience
address. l will investigate the same narratological and linguistic
criteria as in the lirst part ol my paper and again argue that these
conjure up the picture ol a narratee, with whom in this case in the
absence ol onstage interlocutors the spectators are supposed to
identily.

9 5ins cj tnc Narratcc !: ucictic rcncuns

ln his paper on audience address lain discusses one example lrom a
prologue, 1rc. !6-, which had traditionally been adduced as an
instance ol audience address:

[8] luripides 1rcaJcs !6-!
tqv eOiiev t(v c ti coodv Ocici,
ncotiv Tiq icicvq nuiuv no

ll anyone wants to see the poor woman here, lecuba is present lying
in lront ol the door

uer 7uschauer, der diese worte unbelangen vernimmt, muss sich
mit dem ti angesprochen lhlen, writes 8chadewaldt ([1926]1966:
10).
44
lut lain counters: it need not be the spectators who leel

4!
lain (19), reiterated in lain (198: 2), 1aplin (19: 129-!4), reiterated in
1aplin (1986: 166). l lind it dillicult to make out whether lain would allow the
prologue to be indirectly addressed to the public, cl. lain (198: 2): 1here are in
tragedy occasions wncn it is casy tc ain tnc imprcssicn that there is some such direct
communication between actor and audience and an admission that proceedings are
taking place in a theatre. 1his is particularly true ol the prologues ol
luripides...lven so such passages contain no mention ol spectators or second-
person plural verbs. (my italics), is this a yes or no7 1aplin does not consider the
question ol the addressee relevant at all: 8ome unnecessary complication has been
made by the rigid application ol the question who is this addressed to7, lor in many
theatrical contexts, most notably in prologues and choral songs, the question does
not really arise.(19: 1!1-2, note 4).

44
cl. scholion, leo (1908: 2), lrbse (1984 : 64). contrast lee (196: ad !-8): the
words constitute a stage-direction addressed tc tnc prcJuccr wich lur. has integrated
into loseidons speech as best as he could (my italics). cl. larlow (1986: ad !6-): lt

themselves addressed when hearing tis, ol mortals can as easily be
mentally supplied. 1his may be true, but there is also the
demonstrative t(vc, not discussed by lain, by which the speaker
points at lecuba, a gesture which can only be intended lor the
spectators.
lndeed, the prologues abound with this demonstrative pronoun
with deictic lorce, and this has led scholars to take them as
arguments in lavour ol audience address. l tend to agree with them,
but the case needs carelul arguing, since in lact we do lind the same
pronoun in the monologues ol the watchman in Aeschylus Aamcncn
and ol Ajax in 8ophocles Ajax,
4
so in principle speakers can also use
c when they are alone and speaking with themselves.
ln the prologues ol luripides we lind the pronoun used in the lirst
place to indicate the scene where the play is set, e.g. 8a. 1:

[9] luripides 8accnac 1
+iu îo nei t(vc Oqeiev _Oove

l, son ol 7eus, has come to the 1heban land here
46

1hese instances do not seem to imply a gesture. 1hings are getting
dillerent when the pronoun is used in connection with the skcnc-
building or props. An example is 1rc. !2-!:

[10] luripides 1rcaJcs !2-!!
oei diiqoi 1uiuv, no otcyei
teioc coi
4

1he 1rojan women who have not been assigned yet are in this tent

lt seems highly plausible that the pronoun has its lull deictic lorce
and is accompanied by a gesture here.
48
And such a gesture implies

is by way ol a stage-direction tc tnc auJicncc anJ prcJuccr indicating lecubas
position (my italics).

4
A. 18 (oiou to0c), ! (tpc..._ci), Aj. 828 (t(c...(ici), 8!4 (t(c
eoyv().

46
cl. A|c. 8, VcJ. 10, ucrac|. !4, uipp. 12, AnJr. 16, ucc. 8, 5upp|. 1-2, |. 6, ul 8, 1rc.
4, 1 !0, cn , uc|. 4, n. -6, or. 46.

4
cl. A|c. 9, 2!, ucrac|. 42, AnJr. 21, 24, !4-, 4!-4, 5upp|. !0, ul 44, 48, 1, 1 !4, 41,
6-6, cn !9, 66, 69, 6, uc|. 8, 46, 64, n. 68, 9, 8a. 6-, 60. lt should be noted that the
use ol deictic demonstratives need not imply the presence ol painted decors. we
may be dealing with a ucixis am nantasma rather than a Jcmcnstratic aJ ccu|cs.

48
cl. lngland ([1886]1960: ad 1 66): l will go into this house (pointing to it).
8OllOcll8 1k. 1-48, lLklllulAN lkOlOoLl8, ANu 1lllk ALullNcl8 2!
an addressee, a narratee. 1here can, linally, be no doubt that the
pronoun is accompanied by a gesture, when it is used to reler to
silent persons on stage. An example is 1rc. !6-, already mentioned,
and there are many more. A particular lorcelul instance is 5upp|. 20-
2:

[11] luripides 5upp|iccs 20-22
ioivov c otov teio c_uv _cie cq
"eoto e iuoiv tcyyuv c
icitei
49

8haring the burden ol these womens appeal to me Adrastus here lies
upon the ground, his lace wet with tears

lere we still could take teio as anaphoric, relerring back to the
mothers ol the previous sentence,
0
but we really need a gesture or
at least a gaze ol the speaker in order to understand who Adrastus
here is.
1

10 5ins cj tnc Narratcc .: Narratcria| ntcrvcnticns

like the prologue ol the 1racniniac, luripidean prologues regularly
contain narratorial interventions. 1he prologue ol the orcstcs,
spoken by llectra, in particular abounds with them (11-2):

[12] luripides orcstcs 11-2
1his man begot lelops, who was the lather ol Atreus.
lor Atreus the ooddess ... spun a destiny
ol strile, that he should make war on his brother 1hyestes.
lut why shoul d l go over thi s shocki ng tal e7
1o Atreus (l pass over i nterveni ng events) were born

49
cl. A|c. 24 (announcement ol entrance new character), VcJ. 46-8, ucrac|. 11, 24,
!, 40, 49 (announcement), !, uipp. 1 (announcement), ucc. ! (announcement),
5upp|. 8-9, ul 9, 42, cn 9 (announcement), or. !. 8pecial instances are |. 4! and ul
!, where c is used as an emphatic variant ol l, cl. lhner-oerth (1898-1904:
1.64!). 1his idiom regularly occurs in dialogue (8. n. 10!6, 1!, Aj. 8, Ant. 10!, oc
1!29, l. A|c. !!1, 689, VcJ. 1!!), but once in a monologue (Aj. 822).

0
Other instances ol anaphoric or kataphoric c: A|c. , VcJ. !9, ucrac|. 1, uipp.
, 9, 20, 41, AnJr. !, ucc. 42, 5upp|. 8, 1, !, |. 2, !1, 1 !!, 4!, !, cn 28, uc|. !, 6,
n. 9.

1
cl. Allan (2001: ad ucrac|.11): lol. points to the suppliants grouped around him
at the altar, willink (1986: ad or.!): c is indispensable (with a gesture).
Agamemnon the glorious and menelaus...
clytemnestra entangled her husband in an endless woven garment
and killed him. why she did so i t does not beli t a mai den
to say: lor di scussi on i n publ i c l l eave thi s uncl ear.
2

llectras expression lor discussion in public, cv ioiv( oionciv, is
perhaps most signilicant lor my argument: it is made explicitly clear
that llectra is not narrating to hersell or talking to the sleeping
Orestes on stage but addressing a public.
Lnder this heading l would also range the use ol a rhetorical
question, such as lound in ul 1-2:

[1!] luripides ucrcu|cs lurcns 1-2
ti tov îo ouiicitov oi oicv otuv,
Ayciov Aituuv (...),

what mortal does not know the man who shared his bed with 7eus,
Amphitryon ol Argos (...)7

As the addition otuv makes clear, the spectators are not supposed
to leel directly addressed by the ti, but it is the use ol a rhetorical
question itsc|j which presupposes an addressee.

11 5ins cj tnc Narratcc 1: ntrancc Anncunccmcnts

my third category ol signs is ol a dramaturgical nature. ln the course
ol a meticulous study on announced entrances in oreek tragedy
lamilton lays down the rule that il there is only one person on
stage, the entrance will not be announced.
!
ln a number ol
prologues we do lind entrance announcements, despite the lact that
the prologue-speaker is alone, and the natural conclusion, writes
lamilton, is that the speaker is speaking to the audience. An
example is cn 6-9:

[14] luripides cn 6-9
eii c evuq yueie (ooei tc
(...).
ou ye cieivovte Ao(iou yovov
tovc

2
Other examples: |. 4!, 1 !, uc|. 21, 22-!, n. 4!.

!
lamilton (198: 68).
lut l will hide in this laurel-bush (...). lor l see the son ol loxias here
coming out
4

1he analysis ol passages like these as being directed at the spectators
is underscored by the invariable presence ol deictic c.

12 5ins cj tnc Narratcc !-: ntcracticna| artic|cs anJ 1cnscs

A lourth category, which so lar has not been brought lorward in
connection with the luripidean prologue, is, again, the interactional
particle (. lt is lound in increasing lrequency in luripidean
prologues. 1he absolute champion here is the prologue ol the orcstcs,
where it is lound no less than 6 times.

A last category is, again, the use ol tenses. luripidean prologues
do not leature the kind ol alternation between aorist and imperlect
which we observed in 8. 1racniniac. 1he main story line is told in a
series ol aorists.
6
lowever, we do regularly lind historic presents
which are a way ol marking events as important and again
presuppose an audience, to whom this special importance should be
pointed out. An example is uc|. 22-!6:

[1] luripides uc|cna 22-!
Ticvq cii(Oqv. d c ncnovOecv ieie
icyoi dv. qiOov tci Oce iiiou nci
1eiov c icuOuv Aic(evov ne,
+e luni tc ioycv( tc neOcvo, 2
oq Ociouoei iencveoOei iioiv.
toov c iiio, c ieiov to uotu_c,
luni notciveo u Aic(evo yeci,
viidi. iinuv c ouoteO 1eio li
5ntqv eiicO u cov o_(ouv ic_o. !0
+e c cOcio ovci o viidi Oce
c(qvcuoc td Aic(vui ic_q,
iuoi oi c eii ooiuoeo co
cuiov cnvouv oevo0 (uvOcio dno
liou tuvvou neii !

4
lor other examples, see note 49.

A|c. , uipp. , !8, |. !1, !4, !6, !, 4!, ul 26, 41, 1 10, 4!, uc|. , 1, or. 1, !2, !9,
2, 6, 62.

6
A complete inventory and discussion ol the tenses (and moods) used in
luripidean prologues can be lound in Van wolleren (200!).
1he main storyline proceeds by means ol aorists (24, !1, !!), but
laris choice ol lelens beauty and leras gilt ol the phantom to
laris are marked as crucial through historic presents (!0, !4).

1! uripiJcan rc|cucs as uiapncnic Vcnc|cucs

laving argued that the luripidean prologues contain many signs ol
a narratee, with which the spectators are invited to identily, l end up
with a terminological problem: can we still call such prologue-rncscis
monologues7 A perusal ol the commentaries on luripides learns that
though most scholars agree that the luripidean prologues are
directed at the spectators, they continue calling them monologues:
lur. regularly begins his play with a monologue which is directed to
the audience runs a lairly representative quotation, taken lrom the
commentary on the cn by lee (199: 160). ln remarks such as these
the term monologue seems to be taken in a rather broad sense, such
as is delined, e.g. in cuddons uicticnary cj itcrary 1crms anJ itcrary
1nccry: a single person speaking alone with or without an
audience.
1his may be a litting delinition when one takes into account the
entire luropean literature, as cuddon does, who takes his examples
lrom 8trindberg, 8hakespeare, and 1ennyson. lt remains to be seen,
however, whether the situation in early oreek literature does not
ask lor a more restricted delinition. lere it would seem that what
constitutes a monologue is not merely that a speaker is alone on
stage but loremost that he is not addressing someone, but speaking
to himsell. 1his is very clear in the case ol what can be considered
the lorerunner ol the monologue in drama, the lomeric monologue:
the speaker is alone and addresses his tnumcs (cl., e.g. |. 11.40!, 40).
ln the luripidean prologue, with the exception ol the prologue ol
the VcJca, there is no sign ol a character addressing himsell. 1his led
8chadewaldt ([1926]1966: 11) to the lollowing conclusion: als
monologe im eigentlichem 8inn kann die grosse menge der
euripideischen lrologreden nicht angesehen werden. my
investigation ol the many signs ol a narratee supports 8chadewaldts
conclusion: not only is the prologue-speaker not talking to himsell,
but he is clearly envisaging an addressee. low are we to classily such
texts7
lere l take recourse, once again and much in the spirit ol the
theme ol this volume, to linguistic theory, specilically the
terminology introduced into classical scholarship by lroon (199).
1he prologue rncscis would at lirst sight have to be classilied as
monological monologal discourse, i.e. a text which is produced by
one speaker and which consists ol a single move.
lut at the same

time these monological monologal prologues contain so many
dialogical leatures as to belong to the diaphonic discourse type:
1he label diaphonic (...) can be attached to any monological stretch
ol text that somehow displays the leatures ol a communicative
interaction, without having all lormal characteristics ol a dialogical
discourse type (i.e. without having an actual exchange structure).
8

lnterestingly enough, many ol the diaphonic leatures which lroon
(199: 114-1) lists resemble my narratological signs ol the narratee:
historic presents, metacommunicative expressions, and rhetorical
questions.
1aking all these observations together my suggestion would be to
consider the luripidean prologues diaphonic monologues,
monologues, that is, which are spoken by one speaker who is alone
or surrounded by mute characters, but which contain many signs ol
a narratee Jdiaphonic elements, and thereby invite the spectators to
leel addressed. ll l would have to give a parallel lor this kind ol
storytelling, by one speaker but with obvious acknowledgement ol
an audience, it would be the lomeric epics.
9
lt has olten been
remarked, lrom llato in his cn onwards,
60
that the lomeric
rhapsodes in lact were some sort ol actors. why would luripides not
have hit upon the idea to turn his prologue-speaker into some kind
ol rhapsode7
61

lroon (199: 109-10).

8
lroon (199: 112).

9
l owe this suggestion to michael lloyd. lor signs ol the narratee in the
lomeric epics, see ue }ong ([198]2004
2
: 4-60).

60
cn !6a1, !2d.

61
l only make this comparison where the pcrjcrmancc ol the narratives is
concerned, turning to their content and narrative situation, we may observe many
dillerences between epic narrators and prologue-narrators. 1raditionally, it is the
luripidean messenger-speech which is compared to epic storytelling, in my view
unconvincingly: see de }ong (1991), the idea is taken up again by larrett (2002).
14 ccnc|usicn

ln this paper l have discussed two (groups ol) dramatic texts which
are generally considered monologues: 8. 1racniniac 1-48 and
luripidean prologues. Lsing a combined set ol narratological and
linguistic criteria l have pointed out a considerable number ol signs
ol the narratee, which make the qualilication ol monologue
questionable. ln the case ol the 1racniniac the allusive narrative
style, clearly meant lor an insider, and the presence ol the Nurse on
stage, who moreover in her opening speech reacts to ueaniras
words, suggest that ueaniras speech is part ol a dialogue and that
she expects the Nurse to identily with this narratee. ln the case ol
luripidean prologues their detailed nature and the absence ol
possible interlocutors on stage points at the spectators as the ones
who are supposed to identily with this narratee. kather than
monologues tcut ccurt l have suggested to call luripidean prologues
diaphonic monologues. luripides as good as breaks the dramatic
illusion or ruptures the absolute autonomy ol his drama, allowing
himsell indirect audience address. uramatists coming alter him will
take the last step and, instead ol using the construction ol a text-
internal narratee with whom the spectators can identily, will allow
their prologue-speakers to address the spectators directly.
62

62
cl. e.g. menander uysc. 4-6.

clAl1lk 1lkll

mY1llcAl clkONOlOoY lN 1ll Oul8 Ol llNuAk.
1ll cA8l8 Ol Y1uAN 10 ANu oYVAN !

lukas van den lerge

1 ntrcJucticn
1

ln his \cr|csuncn uucr 5yntax, wackernagel argues that oreek tenses
do not dillerentiate between dillerent levels in the past. 1his lack ol
dillerentiation is ascribed to a disinterest in relative chronology on
the part ol the language user:

ls war dem oriechen eben (...) nicht daran gelegen, zwischen
verschiedenen Vergangenheiten zu unterscheiden.
2

Along the same lines, 8chwyzer and uebrunners analysis ol the
oreek tenses presupposes a similar indillerence with regard to
various temporal levels, or 7citstujcn, ol the past. ln their 6riccniscnc
6rammatik, they attribute this to what they presume to be Ancient
oreek wc|tanscnaun, with more prominence given to the present
and the luture than to the past:

lin Volk und eine 8prache, die in ihrer oegenwart aulgehen, brauchen
diese [7eitstulen] nicht durch besondere Verballormen auszudrcken,
und die 7ukunlt wird ihnen wichtiger sein als die Vergangenheit.
!

low do lindars myths lit in with this (supposed) disregard lor levels
in time7
lnstead ol representing the past in a chronologically
straightlorward manner, lindars stories are usually characterized
by an intricate ordering ol their events. low are we, while

1
1he author wishes to thank prol. dr. A. kijksbaron, prol. dr. l.}.l. de }ong and
dr. m.l. de lakker lor their encouragements as well as lor their many helplul
comments on earlier versions ol this paper.

2
wackernagel (1926: 12).

!
8chwyzer & uebrunner (190: 2!-24).
!0 lLlA8 VAN ulN llkol
interpreting lindars odes, supposed to rearrange these events in
their chronological sequence7 Or should we lollow critics like
lermann lrnkel, who argues that lindars odes rellect an archaic
awareness ol time in which the relative chronology ol past events is
olten disregarded7
4
ln that case, we may not have to bother about a
chronological sequence, assuming that lindar and his audience did
not care about dividing the past in various 7citstujcn. ln this paper,
the issue ol chronology will be investigated with specilic regard to
the myths ol ytnian 10 and o|ympian !.

2 1nc Vytn cj lythian !

ln the myth ol ytnian 10, we learn about lerseus visit to the sacred
abode ol the lyperboreans:

[1] lindar ytnian 10.29-49
Neuo ` otc nco uv icv- coi
c `ncocuv eyuve Oeueotev oov, !0

ne oi notc lcoc ceioeto ieycte,
uet` cociOuv,
iicite vuv cietoe Oc(
covte uv Oeiiei cncov
ceiei tc iiot Anoiiuv !
_eici, yci O` ouv iv oOiev ivuiuv.

moioe oi enoeci
tonoi cn octcoioi nevt c
_oo neOcvuv
iudv tc oe ieve_ei t eiuv ovcovtei
v tc _uoc ioe eveqoev- 40
tc cienivoioiv covu.
Noooi otc yqe oiocvov icietei
ic ycvc novuv c ie e_dv dtc

4
lrnkel (19: 11): 8eine uarstellung [der 7eit] greilt auch lortwhrend in die
Vergangenheit hinein, und sie scheut sich nicht oegenwrtiges und Vergangenes
verschiedener 8tulen so durcheinander zu schieben dass sich unser 7eitsinn
misshandelt lhlt. lr kann also die 7eitlolge ignorieren, und tut es olt.

oreek texts and translations in this paper are derived lrom kaces 199 loeb
edition, occasionally, his translations have been slightly adapted.
mY1llcAl clkONOlOoY lN 1ll Oul8 Ol llNuAk !1
oicoioi uyovtc
nciiov Nccoiv. Oeoci c nvcuv iei
oicv êve notc nei, eycito AOve, 4
c evuv eiuv iiov cncvcv
tc loyove, ie noiiiiov ie
eiovtuv oeioiv qiuOc veoiutei
iiOivov Ovetov cuv.

Neither by ships nor on loot could one lind
the marvelous road to the assembly ol lyperboreans. !0

lerseus once leasted with them, leader ol men,
upon entering their halls,
while they sacriliced their glorious hecatombs
ol asses to the god, in their banquets
and joylul speech Apollo linds greatest !
delight, and laughs to see the beasts braying insolence.

Neither is the muse absent
lrom their ways, everywhere choruses ol maidens, sounds
ol lyres and
shrillings ol llutes are whirling,
with their hair crowned by golden laurel 40
they least joylully.
Neither disease or bitter old age has mixed
with their holy race, without toils or battles

they dwell there, having escaped
severely just Nemesis. lreathing courage in his heart, the
son ol uanae once came, Athena led him, to the throng ol 4
the blessed, he slew the
oorgon, and, bearing her head adorned
with locks ol serpents, came to the islanders,
bringing them stony death.

8yntactically, a reconstruction ol the chronological sequence ol the
events in this myth is dillicult to make. ln line !1, ne oi notc,
lollowed by the aorist ceioeto, takes us back to a mythical past, in
which lerseus leasted with the lyperboreans. what lollows is a
lengthy account ol this people and their abode, which could neither
be reached by ships nor on loot (29-!0), in line 44, the theme ol
lerseus and his adventures is taken up again, inlorming the
audience about the guiding role ol Athene, who had helped the hero
to obtain the winged sandals that enabled him to travel where he
wanted. 1hus, the description ol the lyperboreans is lirmly
embedded in a structure ol ring-composition, indicating that
ceioeto in line !1 and oicv in line 4 reler to events ol the same
expedition, both only vaguely located in a mythical past by means ol
the temporal adverb notc (!1).
lut what about the aorists cncvcv and qiuOc, which lollow,
respectively, in lines 46 and 47 1he verbs reler to the slaying ol the
oorgon and lerseus revenge on lolydectes and his circle on the
island ol 8eriphos, with the aorist stem characterizing these actions
as completed.
6
1he temporal point ol orientation ol these aorists,
however, is not clear. lor each particular verb, a relerence point in
time is not (to use a lamiliar phrase) ivcn uy the context, but can
instead be injcrrcJ jrcm the context in two distinctive ways. 1he lirst
possibility is to relate the verbs to coding time, characterizing
lerseus actions as completed with regard to the moment ol
utterance. Another possibility would be to interpret the aorists as
denoting a past-in-the-past, with a past relerence point in time
provided by the imperlect eycito.

8cholarship on this passage has proved that solving this problem
is not easy. lhnken, lor example, has argued that lerseus slaying
ol the oorgon and the petrilication ol his enemies on 8eriphos
should both be understood as prcccJin his stay with the
lyperboreans.
8
ln that case, the lyperborean bliss in which the hero
is allowed to partake is presented as a reward lor his outstanding
achievement, which may thus be analogous with the victors
accomplishment in the games at uelphi. within the web ol analogies
that may be created in this way, the lyperborean banquet can be
seen as representing the lestive celebration as a part ol which the
ode may have been originally perlormed: the victorious return ol
lippokleas, winner ol the boys Jiau|cs in the lythian games ol the
year 498 lc, to his native 1hessaly, in northern oreece.
ln an important article on ring-composition, however, 8later has
argued lor the opposite chronological sequence.
9
lis argument is
based on a structural analysis ol the lerseus-myth, 8later describes

6
cl., e.g. kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 1-!).

lor the use ol the aorist indicative to describe a past-in-the-past, see, e.g.
kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 20).

8
lhnken (191: 1-18).

9
8later (198!: 128-1!2).
mY1llcAl clkONOlOoY lN 1ll Oul8 Ol llNuAk !!
its lay-out as a case ol epic regression, a lorm ol multiple ring-
composition that typically starts with a short synopsis ol the story,
unravels, to a certain point, the story backwards in time, and then
moves lorward again to reach its original point ol departure. while
analyzing the myth in this way, 8later points out that lerseus
actions in lines 46 and 4 are excluded lrom this epic regressive
design, as they are only mentioned alterwards. calling them
terminal exploits, he indicates that, as a rule, terminal exploits
chronologically lollow alter the body ol the myth. 1herelore,
lerseus goes to the lyperboreans lirst, and kills the oorgon and
petrilies the 8eriphians later. According to 8later, lhnkens quest
lor analogic lunction has led him astray while insisting on the
opposite sequence, in 8laters view, the interpreter ol the ode should
not resort to nypcrcxccsis, but should instead be contented with the
idea that lindars relerence to lerseus heroic actions has no
encomiastic relevance at all.
ln my view, 8laters analysis is lorcelul, but not entirely
persuasive. lirst ol all, one could question whether the myth should
be analyzed as a rca| case ol epic regression, thus identilying lerseus
courageous deeds as rca| terminal exploits. 1he lile and abode ol the
lyperboreans, lor example, are described in the present tense only,
without any movement backward or lorward in time, in this way,
their state ol godlike bliss is presented as eternal.
lut what is more: even il one accepts 8laters chronology, there is
no need, l think, to interpret lerseus heroic actions as irrelevant
with regard to the odes supposed encomiastic rhetoric. As has been
widely studied and acknowledged since }ane larrisons work on
oreek religion, victors in sacred games were thought to return home
with some sort ol divine and talismanic power that they did not
possess belore.
10
1his power could, ol course, be benelicial to their
native pc|is, but it could also be seen as a threat to the communitys
internal social harmony. One ol the greatest threats that endanger
this harmony would be embodied in pntncncs lrom the part ol the
victors lellow citizens. 1herelore, it is one ol the encomiasts central
tasks to oppose this pntncncs belore it could even arise, thus assuring
the victor ol a harmonious return.

10
8ee, e.g. larrison 1912, crotty 1982, lurke 199!.
Along these lines, analogies may be created dillering considerably
lrom the parallels that l have indicated above, which had lhnkens
chronological sequence as their point ol departure. within 8laters
chronology, lerseus ncstcs is directed to 8eriphos, where he
petrilies his enemies by showing them the oorgons head. lerhaps,
lerseus revengelul arrival may be thought ol as a relerence to
lippokleas homecoming. ln this way, 8laters redundant terminal
exploits would serve as a rhetoric ol warning: it is not wise to be
envious ol a ytnian victor, any envy or slander will be mirrored and
re-directed towards its originator.
ly way ol conclusion ol my analysis ol ytnian 10, l would say that
there is no way in which the chronological sequence ol the mythical
events ol the ode can be ascertained. lt would be a mistake, however,
to ascribe this either to some sort ol archaic conception ol time, in
which dillerent levels ol pastness are not conceptualized, or to an
utter disregard ol temporal allairs. lnstead, lindars ambiguous
representation ol the myths chronological structure could be seen
as highly ellective lrom a rhetorical point ol view. On the one hand,
the blisslul lyperborean banquet in which lerseus once participated
may be viewed as resembling the 1hessalian celebration ol the
victors achievements in uelphi. On the other hand, and at the same
time, the audience may be warned implicitly not to aim any pntncncs
towards the victor, thus risking a divine resentment being directed
towards themselves.

! 1nc Vytn cj Olympian 1

ln a number ol ways, the case ol lindars o|ympian ! is similar to that
ol ytnian 10. Again, the myth, describes an encounter with the
lyperboreans, and again, the chronological sequence ol the events is
heavily debated. 1he story runs as lollows:

[2] lindar o|ympian !.12-!
(...) iooov cieie, tv notc
"oou eno oiiedv
neydv cvciicv Aituuvie,
vde tuv 'iuni iiiiotov ecOiuv, 1

dov `ncocuv ncioei Anoi-
iuvo Ocnovte ioy(
mY1llcAl clkONOlOoY lN 1ll Oul8 Ol llNuAk !
niote ovcuv îo etci nevoi(
dioci oiieov tc utcue
(uvov evOunoi otcevov t ectdv.
+q ye et(, net cv uuv eyi-
oOcvtuv, i_oqvi iov _uoeto
conce oOeiov evtcic(c m(ve, 20

ie cyiuv ecOiuv eyvev iioiv
ie ncvtectqi ed
Oqic eOcoi cn iqvoi Aico0
eii o ieie cvc cOeiicv
_uo cv ooei loviou lciono.
1outuv co(cv yuvo et( idno o-
(ciei neiouccv eyei eciiou.
^q tot c yeiev nocucv Ouo ue 2

1otiev viv cvOe Aeto0 innoooe Ouytq
c(et ciOovt Aieie eno cidv
ie noiuyvntuv u_uv,
ctc viv eyyciiei
luoOco cvtu evyie netoOcv
_uooicuv cieov
O(iciev d(ovO, dv notc 1eycte
evtiOcio 'Ouoie cyecv icv. !0

tev cOcnuv c ie icivev _Oove
nvoiei niOcv loce
u_o0 toOi Oeivc oteOci.
1uv viv yiui co co_cv
uciyventov nc tce oou
nnuv utc0oei. iei vuv c teutev co-
tev ieo evtiOcoioiv vioctei
ov eOuuvou iuoi neio A(e. !

(...) adornment ol olive, which once
Amphitryons son brought
lrom the shady springs ol lster
as the lairest memorial ol the contests at Olympia, 1

alter he persuaded the lyperborean people,
Apollos servants, with his speech,
in sincerity ol heart he requested lor 7eus all-welcoming
precinct a shady plant
lor men to share, and a crown lor deeds ol excellence.
Already the altars had been
dedicated to his lather, and moon in golden chariot at
mid-month had her evenings lull eye, 20

and he had established the holy judging ol the
great games, together with a lour-year lestival, on
Alpheos sacred banks.
lut the land ol lelops in the vales ol lronos
hill, was not llourishing with beautilul trees. without
them, the enclosure seemed naked to
him, and subject to the suns piercing rays.
1hen it was that his heart urged him to go 2

to the lstrian land, where letos horse-driving daughter
received him on his arrival lrom
Arcadias ridges and much-winding valleys,
when through the commands ol lurystheus
his lathers compulsion
impelled him to bring back
the golden-horned doe, which once 1aygeta
inscribed as a holy ollering to Orthosia. !0

ln pursuit ol her he saw, among other places,
that land behind the blasts ol cold
loreas, there he stood and wondered at the trees.
A sweet desire seized him
to plant the trees around the twelve-lap turn
ol the hippodrome. 8o, now he graciously
comes to that lestival, together with
the godlike twins, sons ol deep-girdled leda. !

lirst, a quick glance at the story as it unlolds. ln line 14, we are
inlormed that leracles, Amphitryons son, once introduced
(cvciicv) the olive tree in Olympia, thus, its loliage could serve as the
lairest memorial ol the sacred games. 8ubsequently, the story traces
its steps backward in time, lirst mentioning the request that
leracles poses to the lyperboreans to obtain the tree in line 1
(etci). 1he movement backward is continued in lines 19-2, which
explain the heros desperate need lor the olive tree and its shadowy
loliage. laving lounded the games in Olympia, leracles realized that
a lack ol trees and shadow was a major threat to his lestival, thus, it
is stated in lines 2 and 26 that his heart then urged him to travel to
the lyperboreans to letch the tree. lrom a structural point ol view,
the myth now seems complete, as q totc line 2 (relerring back to
qq y in line 19) and yeiev 1otiev in line 2J26 (relerring back to
"otou eno oiiedv neydv in line 14) both conclude a ring-like
mY1llcAl clkONOlOoY lN 1ll Oul8 Ol llNuAk !
pattern, in this way, it seems that nothing prevents the ode lrom
readily turning to the present.
ly means ol the relative cvOe, lollowed by the aorist c(eto,
however, something else happens. lut what exactly7 1he story tells
us ol Artemis, letos horse-driving daughter, who once received the
hero in the land ol the lster, where the lyperboreans live. we are
inlormed that leracles was sent by lurystheus to pursue the
cerynean hind, one ol Artemis sacred animals. while chasing this
hind, leracles marvels at the lyperborean olive trees, only alter a
repeated relerence in lines !! and !4 to his desire to plant these
trees at the site ol the games in Olympia, the ode returns to the
present.
low, il at all, should the chronological sequence ol the events ol
this myth be reconstructed7 8cholars are lar lrom unanimous on this
point. 1he discussion locuses especially on c(eto in line 2. 1he
aorist stem characterizes this action as completed, but its temporal
point ol orientation is not immediately clear. whereas some believe
that the verb brings us back to a level ol time that prcccJcs leracles
expedition to letch the olive tree, others believe that the aorist
propels the story jcrwarJ in time, shilting the scene lrom leracles
departure lrom Olympia to his advent in the land ol the lster. Along
similar lines, scholars have counted the number ol journeys leracles
makes to the lyperboreans in various ways. whereas some believe
that the chase ol the cerynean hind should be understood as
preceding his journey to letch the olive tree, others consider the
hero to bring the hind back to lurystheus and the olive tree to 7eus
precinct in Olympia as a result ol one and the same trip.
A proponent ol the latter view is lllig.
11
1o ground his thesis ol
one trip, lllig gives an interesting explanation, arguing that the same
journey is motivated in two dillerent ways. while pointing towards a
contrast between lercules own initiative and lurystheus cruel
commands, lllig indicates that the heros expedition is accounted lor
lrom both an internal (Ouo ue, 2) and an external (eyyciiei
luoOco cvtu evyie, 28) point ol view. According to lllig, the
same goes lor Oeivc (!2) and etci (1), which would reler to the
same event, giving its psychological motivation (Oeivc, !2) as

11
lllig (19!2: 8, 66).
well as its immediate externalization in the lorm ol the heros
request (etci, 1).
ln my view, llligs interpretation ol one journey is attractive, but
nevertheless untenable. One ol the problems is the explicit relerence
in line 2 to ArcaJia instead ol the environments ol llian Olympia as
the starting point ol leracles chase ol the hind (ciOovt Aieie
eno cidv ie noiuyvntuv u_uv, 2).
12
Another matter is
leracles knowledge ol the existence ol the lyperborean olive trees.
low could the hero, in need ol shadowy loliage, have thought ol
these trees without having visited the lyperborean abode on a
previous occasion7 8egal has argued that we shouldn't bother about
inconsistencies and illogicalities like this, claiming that lindar lused
two stories into one without bothering to match the details.
1!

lut is it really necessary to accuse lindar ol such carelessness7 l
do not think so. ln lact, l believe that the story quite clearly
demarcates two journeys, with c(eto in line 2 entering upon a
level ol time that precedes leracles lounding ol the games. 1he
explicit relerence to ArcaJia instead ol |is as the heros point ol
departure should, l think, not be taken as an inconsistency, but
(with, e.g. kobbins 1982: 29) as a specilying phrase that
distinguishes leracles chase ol the hind as a separate episode. ln
this way, the audience is guided to interpret c(eto as a past-in-the-
past, with a past relerence point in time provided by the imperlect
ue in line 2.
lut what about tuv viv yiui co co_cv in line !!7 many
commentators (e.g. lamilton 194, lehnus 1981) are puzzled by this
line, maintaining that the temporal orientation ol the sentence
alters as it unlolds. lamilton puts it like this:

1he lirst part ol the sentence delinitely relers to the trip on which he
lirst saw he olive (...) and the second seems to but could not since the
racecourse had not been built yet (...). A marvelous conlusion.
14

with kobbins (1982) and lhnken (198!), however, l think there is
no need lor any conlusion, the odes recipient is helped, l think, by
means ol ring-composition. ln line !2, toOi picks up cvOe in line 26,

12
cl., e.g. kobbins (1982: 296-29).

1!
8egal (1964: 26).

14
lamilton (194: 61).
mY1llcAl clkONOlOoY lN 1ll Oul8 Ol llNuAk !9
thus lorging lines 26-!2 into a solid unit. ln this way it may not be
very dillicult to understand that the relative tuv in the subsequent
line propels the story lorward in time instead ol elaborating upon
leracles chase ol the hind,
1
this interpretation, moreover, is
corroborated by the back-relerence ol yiui co co_cv in line !!
to Ouo ue in line 2. ln this way, we can be sure that lines !!
and !4 reler to leracles trip to letch the olive tree, which he
undertook on behall ol his own sweet desire.
while concluding the analysis ol the leracles-myth in o|ympian !,
it could be stated that a clear chronological sequence ol the mythical
events can be dependably reconstructed by means ol a close analysis
ol the story. lts order ol events has been neither lexicalized nor
grammatically lormalized, instead, it can be reliably inlerred lrom
the context in two dillerent ways. lirstly, a phrase ol specilication
enables the odes recipient to use his knowledge ol the world to
arrive at the correct interpretation. moreover, the recipient is
guided by means ol ring-composition, dillerentiating two separate
episodes, rellecting two separate journeys to the lyperboreans.
lut why does lindar present his story in such an exceedingly
complex lashion7 lart ol the answer can perhaps be lound in the
theme ol guest-lriendship that pervades the ode.
As most scholars agree, lindar's o|ympian ! was (most probably)
lirst perlormed as part ol a lestival ol tnccxcnia,
16
which celebrated
the advent ol castor and lollux in Acragas. ln the poem's opening
lines, the presence ol the twins in their local precinct is hinted at:

[!] lindar o|ympian !.1-!
1uveiei tc iio(civoi eciv
ieiiinioi( O Ticv
iicivev Aiyevte yceiuv c_oei,
O(uvo 'iunioviiev
vov oOuoei

l pray to please the hospitable 1yndarids
and lelen with beautilul locks
while rewarding renowned Akragas with my gilt,

1
cl., e.g. kobbins (1982: 289).

16
lor dissenting views, see esp. lrnkel (1961) and 8helmerdine (198).
compelling arguments lor theoxenia as the lestive context ol the odes original
perlormance, however, have been provided by kobbins (1984) and lrummen (1991).
40 lLlA8 VAN ulN llkol
raising a hymn in celebration
ol 1herons Olympic victory

ln lines !9-41, moreover, the victory ol 1heron, the odes |auJanJus,
is presented as a gilt in return lor his and his lamilys habit ol
welcoming the 1yndarids with splendid leasts ol celebration. we
may assume that tnccxcnia are meant:

[4] lindar o|ympian !.!8-41
(...) cc dv n
Ouo otuvci cv Tcviei
O(uvi t ciOciv i0o cinnuv iov-
tuv 1uveidv, ti nicioteioi otuv
(civiei eto cnoi_ovtei tencei,
cocci yvu uiooovtc eiuv tcict.

(...) 8omehow, then, my heart urges me to declare
that to the lmmenids and 1heron glory has come as a gilt
lrom 1yndareos sons with splendid horses, because ol all mortals
they honour them with the most numerous welcoming tables,
preserving the rites ol the blessed with pious mind.

leracles request lor the olive tree embodies the same spirit ol
lriendship and harmony. 1he heros strategy in overcoming
dilliculties is olten characterized by the brutal use ol lorce.
1
while
obtaining the olive tree, however, leracles persuades the
lyperboreans by upholding a plea (ioy(, line 16) in which he
politely justilies his request. As such, the heros peacelul journey to
obtain the tree, undertaken on leracles own account, is strictly
dillerentiated lrom his chase ol the hind, undertaken on behall ol
lurystheus, his cruel master. 8ome versions ol this latter story
report an unpleasant or even violent encounter with Artemis.
18
lor
any violence or imminent violence, however, the myth indicates that
only lurystheus is to blame (eyyciiei luoOco cvtu evyie, 28).
Lltimately, leracles conduct during his lirst visit to the
lyperboreans could even be ascribed to his divine lather (netoOcv,
28), alter all, it was 7eus whose oath (deceitlully taken lrom him by
lera) had made lurystheus so powerlul.
19

1
cl., e.g. 8helmerdine (198: !).

18
8ee uevereux (1966: 294-29).

19
8ee, e.g. lom. |. 19. 9-1!!.
mY1llcAl clkONOlOoY lN 1ll Oul8 Ol llNuAk 41
On his second trip to the lyperboreans, however, lurystheus
cruel commands are not to be leared. 1o emphasize this, the story
both starts (ncioei ioy(, 1, niote ovcuv, 1) and ends (yiui
co, !!) with a relerence or relerences to leracles peacelul and
trustworthy intentions while letching the olive tree. Any
transgressive behaviour during his chase ol the cerynean hind is
thus structurally embedded in a sphere ol honest lriendship that
may perlectly belit the odes original lestive occasion.

4 ccnc|usicn

ln conclusion, with regard to both o|ympian ! and ytnian 10, there is
no need to assume that lindar and his audience had no interest in
dillerent levels ol pastness. Admittedly, the event order is not
indeleasibly coded in either ol these odes. ln ytnian 10, however,
the chronological ambiguity may serve to enhance the odes
encomiastic rhetoric, whereas in o|ympian !, the chronological order
ol the mythical events can be reliably inlerred lrom the context. ln
lact, the ordering ol the mythical events in both odes seems to
rellect the astute skills ol the poet in presenting his stories in ways
that best serve his rhetorical purposes.

clAl1lk lOLk

ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu lA8l8 lN Vlkoll8 ANu
1

8uzanne m. Adema

1 ntrcJucticn

1he main story ol the AcnciJ starts when Aeneas is sailing towards
ltaly and ends when the hero has reached these shores and kills
1urnus, thereby ending a war and paving the way lor komes
loundation. ln between, the narrator ol the AcnciJ engages in a wide
variety ol activities: he communicates with the muses, his readers
and his characters, he describes and he tells the story. 1he aim ol
this paper is to give an overview ol these activities. 1hat is, to give
an indication ol the dillerent ways in which Vergil presents his epic.
1hese ways ol presentation may be described by means ol two
parameters: Jisccursc mcJcs (8mith 200!) and the uasc lrom which the
narrator chooses to use these discourse modes (cutrer 1994). lirst, l
will discuss the characteristics ol the lour Jisccursc mcJcs occurring
in the AcnciJ, locusing on tense usage. 1he second section explains,
by means ol the concept uasc, that the narrator does not only
present his story lrom his own point in time, but that he also has
another point in time available lor his presentation, namely rcjcrcncc
timc.
2
1his insight will be used to show that each ol the lour
discourse modes is also used lrom a base in relerence time, and thus

1
l would like to thank larm-}an van uam and caroline lroon lor their
comments on earlier versions ol this paper.

2
l use this term in a strict sense: the moment that is considered in a particular
part ol the story is the rcjcrcncc timc (lamp & kohrer 198!). 1he term rcjcrcncc pcint
or timc is also used by linrichs (1986) and lartee (198!). As the narrator continues
his story, the relerence time constantly shilts to a next part ol the story time
(lartee 198!: 24, ury 198!, Almeida 199). lamp & kohrer derive their use ol the
term explicitly lrom keichenbachs theory (keichenbach, 194), in which it is used
in a somewhat broader sense, i.e. in keichenbachs theory rcjcrcncc timc may reler to
past, present, or luture orientation moments.
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu lA8l8 lN Vlkoll8 ANu 4!
has a transpcscJ variant. 1he last section considers one ol these
transposed modes, the Jircctin mcJc, in more detail, and presents
my view on the use ol the so-called historic or narrative present as
the basic tense ol most parts ol the AcnciJ.

2 uisccursc VcJcs

ln her book VcJcs cj uisccursc (200!), 8mith provides tools to describe
the dillerent ways ol presentation in written texts by distinguishing
several Jisccursc mcJcs. 1he discourse mode Narrativc, lor instance,
covers past events and situations, usually presented in chronological
order. when engaging in ucscripticn, the narrator takes his time to
give the (physical) characteristics ol, lor instance, a certain object or
character in his story world. 1he rcpcrtin mcJc is similar to spoken
communication, as a narrator who is rcpcrtin actually stops being a
narrator lor a moment and talks about his present, luture or past. ln
addition to these discourse modes, we may also discern the
rcistcrin mcJc, which occurs less lrequently and contains present
tense lorms rcistcrin what is going on at the moment in which the
narrator writes or perlorms his story.
!

1he interpretation ol tense lorms is an important key to
recognize each ol these discourse modes, but olten not the only one:
their interpretations can be (partly) derived lrom linguistic elements
in the context, or lrom the semantic content. 1he use ol tenses in
the several discourse modes can be neatly arranged in a 1able.
4

!
1he other two discourse modes as presented in 8mith (200!) are njcrmaticn
and Arumcnt, cl. also lroons contribution (this volume).

4
1he injinitivus nistcricus is used in the AcnciJ in the narrative mode and in the
directing mode (Adema lorthc.).
44 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
1able 1: 1he use ol tenses in uiscourse modes

ui scourse mode 1ense lnterpretati on

lresent tense contemporaneous to time ol
narrator, universal truths
lerlect tense

Anterior to time ol narrator
lmperlect tense contemporaneous to
orientation moment in past ol
narrator
keport
luture tense

losterior to time ol narrator
kegi steri ng lresent tense contemporaneous to moment
ol speech
lerlect tense lounded in relerence time
(in past ol narrator)
lmperlect tense Lnbounded in relerence time
Narrati ve
lluperlect tense Anterior to relerence time
lresent tense contemporaneous to time ol
narrator
uescri pti on
lmperlect tense

Lnbounded in relerence time

ln the next section l will elaborate on the elements that characterize
each ol these discourse modes, starting with the discourse modes
rcpcrtin and rcistcrin.
6

! kcpcrtin anJ kcistcrin

keport is similar to spoken, everyday communication in that it relers
to states ol allairs presented in connection with the time ol speech.

All interpretations ol the tenses are derived lrom their semantic value, as
described in linkster (198!, 1990).

6
ln my lhu-project l divided the AcnciJ up according to the Jisccursc mcJcs. 1he
discussion that lollows here is concerned with the leatures that are indicative ol a
certain discourse mode, as they were lound in the text ol the AcnciJ. uistributional
data will be part ol my dissertation, which will also elaborate on why the narrator
might choose a certain discourse mode.
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu lA8l8 lN Vlkoll8 ANu 4
1he registering mode (example [!]) contains those states ol allairs
that locus on the moment ol utterance. lt may be seen as a specilic
type ol report. As lar as tense usage in the reporting mode is
concerned, the narrator uses present tense lorms to communicate
states ol allairs contemporaneous to his own point in time and
perlect tense lorms to reler to states ol allairs in his past.
ln the
reporting mode, we lind perlect tense lorms, lor instance, where we
would have expected imperlect tense lorms il the narrative
discourse mode (see below) had been used, as is illustrated by the
lollowing example. An imperlect tense lorm would have suggested
the actual start ol a story, taking place in carthage, whereas the
perlect tense lorm juit presents its existence as a mere lact.

[1] Vergil AcnciJ 1.12-1
Lrbs antiqua l ui t, 1yrii tenuere coloni,
larthago, ltaliam contra 1iberinaque longe
ostia, diues opum studiisque asperrima belli,
quam luno lertur terris magis omnibus unam
posthabita col ui sse 8amo, hic illius arma,
hic currus lui t

1here was an ancient city, the home ol 1yrian settlers,
carthage, over against ltaly and the 1ibers mouth alar,
rich in wealth and stern in wars pursuits.
1his, t is said, }uno loved above all other lands,
holding 8amos itsell less dear. lere was her armor,
here her chariot
8

Apart lrom the use ol the perlect, the construction ol a vcruum
JiccnJi in the actual present (jcrtur) and the perlect inlinitive
(cc|uissc) is also typical lor report.
9

1he imperlect tense is seldom used in the reporting mode, it may be used when
an explicit orientation moment or time span in the past ol the narrator is given (e.g.
6.2!9ll. in which the perlect tense lorm juit lunctions as a past orientation moment).
An example ol the luture tense in the reporting mode is lound in 9.44.

8
All translations are taken lrom: l. lairclough, Viri|: c|cucs, 6ccrics, AcnciJ,
part 1&2 (loeb 1999).

9
Other examples are lound in, lor instance, !.8, 4.204, .88, 6.14, .409, .!,
.6, 8.600, 9.82, 9.91, 12.! (see also leinze 190!: 242). A remarkable leature ol
this construction is that it may present a part ol the storys time line by means ol
the non-narrative discourse mode ol rcpcrtin (e.g. 4.20!). 1he position ol the state
ol allairs expressed by the perlect inlinitive on the time line ol the story is
disregarded in these cases, instead, the narrator presents the state ol allairs in

46 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
1he identilication ol the reporting mode may sometimes also
benelit lrom the content ol the text. when, lor instance, the
narrator uses the present tense to give inlormation about koman
nomenclature, the combination ol the name ol a koman cns and the
present tense results in the realization that the present tense lorm
relers to the time ol the narrator (and is not a pracscns nistcricum), as
is illustrated by Jcmus tcnct a uc 5cria ncmcn in the lollowing
example.
10

[2] Vergil AcnciJ .116-12!
uelocem mnestheus agi t acri remige lristim,
mox ltalus mnestheus, genus a quo nomine memmi,
ingentemque oyas ingenti mole chimaeram,
urbis opus, triplici pubes quam uardana uersu
i mpel l unt, terno consurgunt ordine remi,
8ergestusque, domus tenet a quo 8ergia nomen,
centauro i nuehi tur magna, 8cyllaque cloanthus
caerulea, genus unde tibi, komane cluenti.

mnestheus with his eager crew drives the swilt 8ea uragon,
soon to be mnestheus ol ltaly, lrom whose name comes the memmian
line, oyas the huge chimaera ol huge bulk,
a city alloat, driven lorward by the uardan youth in triple tier,
with oars rising in threelold rank.
8ergestus lrom whom the 8ergian house has its name,
rises in the great centaur and in the sea-blue 8cylla clianthus,
whence comes your lamily, cluentius ol kome!

1hus, the relerences to the time ol the narrator make us interpret
the present tense lorm tcnct in a dillerent way than the present
tense lorms ait, impc||unt, ccnsurunt and inucnitur which are
instances ol the pracscns nistcricum (see below).
1he present tense lorm tcnct in Jcmus tcnct a uc 5cria ncmcn is
used because it relers to a state ol allairs that is contemporaneous to
the moment ol speech (linkster 198!). 1he scope ol this tense lorm
is, however, somewhat wider than just the moment ol speech. 1hat
is, the state ol allairs ol tcnct was also going on in the (more or less
immediate) past ol the narrator and his expectation is that it will

connection with his own time by presenting it as a perlect inlinitive subordinated to
a real present tense lorm ol a vcruum JiccnJi.

10
Ol course this relative clause is not the only reported relative clause in this
passage. 1his passage contains three reported clauses about koman cntcs.
also continue to be valid in his luture. As a result, the interpretation
ol the verb lorm tcnct is ol a more general character than that ol
ncrrcscc, lor instance, in the parenthetical clause ncrrcscc rcjcrcns,
which interrupts Aeneas story about the death ol laocoon.
11

[!] Vergil AcnciJ 2.20!-20
ecce autem gemini a 1enedo tranquilla per alta
(horresco relerens) immensis orbibus angues
incumbunt pelago pariterque ad litora tendunt,

and lo! lrom 1enedos, over the peacelul depths
l shudder as l speak a pair ol serpents with endless coils
are breasting the sea and side by side making lor the shore.

ln accordance with this observation, we may discern a specilic and
small group ol present tense lorms such as ncrrcscc, which rcistcr
what is going on at the moment ol speech, in contrast to the present
tense lorms in the reporting mode, which represent states ol allairs
that imply a longer time span. 1he rcistcrin mcJc covers those
instances in a work ol literature in which the narrator relers to the
very moment in which he utters (in written or spoken lorm) his
story.
12

keturning to the reporting mode, l would like to add that this
mode may also be recognized by proximal deictic adverbs such as
nunc, but cn|y il they reler to the time or place ol the narrator. Alter
all, these proximal deictic adverbs may also reler to another time or
place than the world ol the narrator (see below). Other
characteristics ol report are lirst person verb lorms, vocatives,
imperatives and interrogative words, olten co-occurring in
apostrophes. 1he use ol superlatives and comparatives is also lound
in report, olten in combination with the perlect tense lorm juit. ln
instances like these, it is the narrator who judges a character lrom
his own point in time, and assigns to him an appropriate

11
1his also holds lor present tense lorms which represent universal truths: they
are presented in the present tense as they are valid in the time ol the speaker, and
we interpret them as generally valid because ol their content, e.g. .!2ll. (cl.
linkster 1998: 64-).

12
lt has to be said that the registering mode rarely occurs in the AcnciJ. Apart
lrom this instance it is lound at 1.1, 2.91, 2.1!4, 2.4!2, 2.06, !.!9, 6.28, 6.601, .44l.
and 9.2. l point out this mode because it is helplul in explaining the Jircctin mcJc,
which l will present as the most important mode ol the AcnciJ (see below).
48 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
comparative or superlative adjective, i.e. it is the narrator who tells
us that no one was more beautilul than luryalus in example [4].
1!

Nisus erat portae custos, acerrimus armis,
lyrtacides, comitem Aeneae quem miserat lda
uenatrix iaculo celerem leuibusque sagittis,
et iuxta comes luryalus, uc pu|cnricr a|tcr
ncn j ui t AcncaJum 1rciana ncuc inJuit arma,
ora puer prima signans intonsa iuuenta.

Nisus was guardian ol the gate, most valiant ol warriors,
son ol lyrtacus, whom lda the huntress had sent in Aeneas train,
quick with javelin and light arrows.
At his side was luryalus none lairer
was among the Aeneadae, or wore 1rojan armor
a boy who showed on his unshaven cheeck the lirst bloom ol youth.

A very important leature ol the reporting mode is the absence ol
advancement ol relerence time, a leature that distinguishes it lrom
the discourse mode narrative. 1he discourse mode narrative takes
the relation between states ol allairs into consideration, and
presents them as single elements on a larger time line. 1he reporting
mode considers the relation between an individual state ol allairs
and tnc timc cj spcccn. 1his criterion usually helps to distinguish
between the narrative and the reporting mode, as may be illustrated
by a short sequence ol reported perlect tense lorms. 1he perlect
tense lorms in this example serve to organize the story in that they
give an austract ol the scene to come.
14
1hat is, they do not indicate
successive events on the time line, but summarize the actions that
mars will perlorm in the next scene.

[] Vergil AcnciJ 9.1-19
lic mars armipotens animum uirisque latinis
addi di t et stimulos acris sub pectore uerti t,
i mmi si tque lugam 1eucris atrumque 1imorem.
undique conueni unt, quoniam data copia pugnae,
bellatorque animo deus i nci di t.

1!
1he reporting mode is used in the subordinate clause which is embedded in a
sequence presented in the discourse mode narrative (see below).

14
1he term austract is used in the sense ol labov (192), see also Allans
contribution (this volume).
At this mars, the mighty in war, lent lresh strength and valor
to the latins, and in their hearts plied his keen goads,
and let slip llight and dark 1error among the 1eucrians.
lrom all sides gather the latins, since scope lor light is given,
and the god ol battle seizes on their souls.

1he perlect tense lorms aJJiJit, ucrtit and immisit announce that, in
the ensuing scene, mars adds strength to the latin soldiers,
stimulates them and sends lear to the 1rojans without specilying the
order ol these states ol allairs. 1he actual scene then starts with the
present tense lorm ccnucniunt, and the present tense lorm inciJit
indicates the carrying out ol what was announced in the abstract. ln
contrast to the perlect tense lorms in this example, perlect tense
lorms that do represent successive events on the time line ol the
story are part ol the discourse mode narrative.

4 Narrativc

1he tenses used in the discourse mode narrative are the perlect,
imperlect and pluperlect tense. 1he dillerence between the perlect
tense and the imperlect tense in tnc Jisccursc mcJc narrativc is that
the perlect tense denotes bounded states ol allairs, whereas the
imperlect gives expression to unbounded states ol allairs.
1
1his
dillerence is illustrated in the example below, which starts with a
description ol how and where the ltalian peoples sought omens. 1he
imperlect tense lorms mactauat and iaccuat represent unbounded
states ol allairs, i.e. their beginning and end are lelt implicit. 1he
perlect tense lorm rcJJita cst relers to a bounded state ol allairs, as
this state ol allairs is presented as coming to an end.

[6] Vergil AcnciJ .8-9
hinc ltalae gentes omnisque Oenotria tellus
in dubiis responsa petunt, huc dona sacerdos
cum tulit et caesarum ouium sub nocte silenti
pellibus incubuit stratis somnosque petiuit,
multa modis simulacra uidet uolitantia miris
et uarias audit uoces lruiturque deorum
conloquio atque imis Acheronta adlatur Auernis.

1
l use the terms bounded and unbounded in the sense ol uepraetere (199).
0 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
hic et tum pater ipse petens responsa latinus
centum lanigeras mactabat rite bidentis,
atque harum ellultus tergo stratisque i acebat
uelleribus: subita ex alto uox reddi ta luco est...

lrom this place the tribes ol ltaly and all the Oenotrian land
seek responses in days ol doubt: to it the priestess
brings the ollerings, and as she lies under the silent night
on the outspread lleeces ol slaughtered sheep and woos slumber,
she sees many phantoms llitting in wondrous wise,
hears many voices, holds converse with the gods,
and speaks with Acheron in lowest Avernus.
lere then, also, ling latinus himsell, seeking an answer,
duly slaughtered a hundred woolly sheep,
and lay couched on their hides and outspread
lleeces. 8uddenly a voice came lrom the deep grove...

ln this example, ct tum indicates the transition lrom a non-narrative
sequence back to a narrated sequence, more specilically, the
transition lrom a more general description ol an ltalian custom to
latinus actually perlorming this custom. 1he imperlect tense lorms
mactauat and iaccuat are used to indicate what was taking place in
the relerence time to which we return, belore the narrator relates
the event ol ucx rcJJita cst, thereby advancing relerence time.
1his advancement ol relerence time in the discourse mode
narrative plays a vital role in distinguishing it lrom the reporting
mode (as we have seen).
16
1he temporal progression in the discourse
mode narrative may be made explicit by means ol adverbs marking
the sequence ol the states ol allairs such as JcinJc, inJc, ninc, Jcninc,
tum and pcst, as can be observed in the lollowing passage.
1

[] Vergil AcnciJ 1.28-40
lic regina grauem gemmis auroque poposci t
i mpl eui tque mero pateram, quam lelus et omnes
a lelo soliti, tum lacta silentia tectis:
luppiter, hospitibus nam te dare iura loquuntur,

16
1he distinction between states ol allairs which advance relerence time
(usually bounded states ol allairs) and states ol allairs that do not (usually
unbounded) in the narrative mode may be used as a distinction between loreground
and background. lor my opinion on the distinction ol narrative texts into
loreground and background see Adema (2002), cl. also 8mith (200!: !4l).

1
As in example [], the adverb nic indicates a change in discourse mode, namely
a change lrom the directing mode to the narrative mode (cl. lolkestein 2000).
hunc laetum 1yriisque diem 1roiaque prolectis
esse uelis, nostrosque huius meminisse minores.
Adsit laetitiae lacchus dator, et bona luno,
et uos, O, coetum, 1yrii, celebrate lauentes.
ui xi t, et in mensam laticum l i baui t honorem,
primaque, libato, summo tenus atti gi t ore,
tum litiae dedi t increpitans, ille impiger hausi t
spumantem pateram et pleno se prol ui t auro
post alii proceres.

1hen the queen called lor a cup, heavy with jewels and gold,
and lilled it with wine one that lelus and all ol
lelus line had been wont to use. 1hen through the hall lell silence:
}upiter lor they say that you appoint laws lor host and guest
grant that this be a day ol joy lor 1yrians and the voyagers lrom 1roy,
and that our children may remember it!
may lacchus, giver ol joy, be near, and bounteous }uno,
and do you, 1yrians, grace the gathering with lriendly spirit!
8he spoke, and on the board ollered a libation ol wine,
and, alter the libation, was lirst to touch the goblet with her lip,
then with a challenge gave it to litias. le briskly drained
the loaming cup, and drank deep in the brimming gold,
then other lords drank.

ln relerence time queen uido asked lor a specilic cup, tncn (tum)
everyone was silent. Alter her short speech, she was the lirst to
drink (prima), lollowed by litias, and eventually (pcst) the others.
contrary to the perlect tense lorms in example [], those in example
[] clearly represent successive events on the time line ol the story.
ln short, the discourse mode narrative is characterized by
progression along the storys time line (8mith 200!: 14), whereas in
case ol report this time line is lelt out ol consideration and it is all
about the relation between the state ol allairs and the narrators
time (8mith 200!: 16). A discourse mode in which relerence time
temporarily comes to a halt is the Jcscriuin mcJc (8mith 200!: 28).

ucscripticn

1he describing mode is characterized by the absence ol temporal
progression. kelerence time does not advance, but the narrator takes
the time to describe an object in the lictive world. lnstead ol adverbs
that record temporal progression, words indicating location and
2 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
spatial progression are lound, such as antc, ccntra, cx crJinc, ncc prccu|
ninc and prcxima. One could imagine that present tense lorms are
used in the describing mode, in a description ol an object or place
that also exists in the time ol the narrator, but this does not seem to
happen in the AcnciJ.
18

1he narrator uses the imperlect tense to describe an object or
location in his past, as is illustrated by example [8]. 1he imperlect
tense lorms ccnJcuat, surcuant and striJcuat denote unbounded
states ol allairs that are contemporaneous to relerence time.

lic templum lunoni ingens 8idonia uido
condebat, donis opulentum et numine diuae,
aerea cui gradibus surgebant limina, nexaeque
aere trabes, loribus cardo stri debat anis.

lere 8idonian uido was lounding to }uno a mighty
temple, rich in gilts and the presence ol the goddess.
lrazen was its threshold uprising on steps, bronze plates
were its lintel beams, on doors ol bronze creaked the hinges.

kelerence time does not move while uidos devotional creation is
described, but this description certainly involves movement: the
narrator takes us up lrom the threshold and its stairs to the bronze
doors, adding sound to his description by means ol striJcuat.
Although relerence time stands still, the picture delinitely does
not.
19

Narrators may thus narratc, Jcscriuc, rcpcrt, and rcistcr, and the
narrator ol the AcnciJ does all lour. lowever, a division ol the AcnciJ
into these lour discourse modes does not yield an appropriate
description ol the tense usage in this epic work, since it does not

18
8ee example [1!] lor a description in historic present tense lorms. cl. also livy
22.4 lor a present tense description which seems to be valid in his own time: ct iam
pcrucncrant aJ |cca nata insiJiis, uui maximc mcntcs ccrtcncnscs in 1rasumcnnum siJunt.
\ia tantum intcrcst pcranusta, uc|ut aJ jiJ] ipsum Jc inJustria rc|ictc spatic, JcinJc pau|c
|aticr patcscit campus, inJc cc||cs aJsurunt. (1nc cartnainians naJ uy ncw rcacncJ a spct
natura||y suitcJ tc an amuusn, tnc arca wncrc 1rasimcnc is at its c|cscst tc tnc mcuntains cj
ccrtcna. 8ctwccn tnc twc tncrc is nc mcrc tnan a narrcw patnway, a|mcst as ij just cncun
spacc naJ uccn Jc|iucratc|y |cjt jcr uanniua|s purpcsc| Ajtcr tnis, tnc tcrrain wiJcns a |itt|c
tc jcrm a p|ain, anJ ucycnJ tnat risc scmc ni||s. 1ranslation: }.c. Yardley (2006)).

19
8ee lroon (this volume) lor lurther characteristics ol the describing mode and
its use in Ovids Vctamcrpncscs.
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu lA8l8 lN Vlkoll8 ANu !
account lor the extensive use ol the present tense as the basic tense
ol the story. 1he discourse modes as provided by 8mith seem to
represent as a result ol her corpus a speaker or narrator who is
based in his own point in time, whereas this is not always the case
with the narrator ol the AcnciJ. ln lact, he usually positions himsell
in the time ol the story, using the present tense (the so-called
pracscns nistcricum) to inlorm his readers ol what is happening there.

6 8ascs

lresent tense lorms which do not reler to the real lile present ol the
speaker generally occur in many contexts: recipes, stage directions,
synopses et cetera (langacker 2001: 269). 1he lunction ol the present
tense lorm, however, is the same in all these environments: the
speaker indicates that the state ol allairs expressed by the present
tense takes place in what he has chosen to be his uasc (linkster 198!,
1990, cutrer 1994, langacker 2001).
ln case ol the so-called historic present the uasc is rcjcrcncc timc.
1his may be illustrated by means ol an example. ln the lollowing
passage, a truce called earlier by ltalians and 1rojans is severely
threatened and eventually broken. we enter the scene alter a speech
by }uturna, the sister ol Aeneas main enemy 1urnus. 1he present
tense lorms scrpit, uc|unt, prccantur and miscrantur indicate what is
going on in relerence time.

[9] Vergil AcnciJ 12.2!8-24!
1alibus i ncensa est iuuenum sententia dictis
iam magis atque magis, serpi tque per agmina murmur:
ipsi laurentes mutati ipsique latini.
qui sibi iam requiem pugnae rebusque salutem
sperabant, nunc arma uol unt loedusque precantur
inlectum et 1urni sortem mi serantur iniquam.

with such words the warriors resolve is kindled
yet more and more, and a murmur creeps lrom rank to rank.
lven the laurentines, even the latins are changed,
and they who but lately hoped lor rest lrom the lray, and salety
lor their lortunes, now long lor arms, pray that the covenant be
undone, and pity 1urnus unjust late.

4 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
lere, the rcjcrcncc timc is contrasted to a time in the past ol this
rcjcrcncc timc: the kutulians want to light now, whereas in the past
they were hoping lor a peacelul solution. 1he adverb nunc
emphasizes this contrast. At the same time, this adverb shows that
relerence time is indeed available as a substitute now, or, in more
technical terms, it shows that relerence time is available as a uasc.
20

Not only do we lind the present tense and the adverb nunc here,
indicating that the narrator takes relerence time as his base, the
imperlect tense lorm spcrauant and the perlect tense lorms inccnsa
cst and mutati conlirm this. ln accordance with their semantic value
(as given by linkster 198!, 1990), the imperlect tense lorm spcrauant
relers to a state ol allairs that is contemporaneous to an orientation
moment in the past ol relerence time (i.e. when everything was still
relatively peacelul), whereas the perlect tense lorm indicates
anteriority to the relerence time. 1hat is, 1urnus resolve had
already been kindled in relerence time, and the latines had already
been changed.
1he use ol the present subjunctive in indirect speech and linal
clauses also rellects the existence ol a base in relerence time, as is
illustrated by the example below: the indirect question depending
on cJccct contains a present subjunctive ccnstct.

lxtemplo socios primumque accersi t Acesten
et louis imperium et cari praecepta parentis
edocet et quae nunc animo sententia constet.

8traightway he summons his comrades Acestes lirst
and instructs them ol }oves command, the counsel ol his dear lather,
and the resolve now settled in his soul.

According to the rule ol the sequence ol tenses, an imperlect
subjunctive should have been used here. lowever, there is a
tendency lor the so-called historic present to govern subordinate
clauses containing present or perlect subjunctives instead ol
imperlect or pluperlect subjunctives respectively (lhner-8tegmann

20
8ee kisselada (1998) lor this use ol nunc. Other deictic adverbs which take
relerence time as their base (temporal or spatial) are prccu| (e.g. 2.42), iui (e.g. 6.!!!),
mcJc (e.g. 11.141) and nupcr (e.g. 6.!!8).
1912: ll.2 16). 1his tendency is very strong in the AcnciJ, and l think
we may, in the case ol indirect speech, even call it a rule.
21

ln short, the narrator ol the AcnciJ may use two points in time as
his uasc: his own point in time and the rcjcrcncc timc ol his story. le
employs the alorementioned Jisccursc mcJcs lrom each ol these two
bases, resulting in a set ol eight ways ol presentation, which can be
represented in diagram lorm.

1able 2: Overview ol discourse modes and bases in AcnciJ

lase 1ime ol narrator kelerence time
kcistcrin 1ranspcscJ kcistcrin: ui rcct i n
kcpcrt 1ranspcscJ kcpcrt
Narrativc 1ranspcscJ Narrativc
uisccursc
VcJc
ucscripticn 1ranspcscJ ucscripticn

As can be seen, the Jircctin mcJc (which will be the subject ol a
separate section) is the counterpart ol the registering mode.
22
1he
counterpart ol the other discourse modes are transpcscJ rcpcrt,
transpcscJ narrativc and transpcscJ Jcscripticn. As l will show below,
the interpretation ol the tenses is the same in these transposed
modes as the interpretation in their counterparts, however, these
tenses relate to a base in relerence time instead ol a base in the time
ol the narrator.
1his means that in transpcscJ rcpcrt the present tense relers to
states ol allairs that are valid in relerence time because they are
valid in the lictive world as a whole, whereas the perlect tense
indicates anteriority to relerence time. 1his may be illustrated with
relerence to the ensuing passage, which is part ol the catalogue ol

21
1he imperlect or pluperlect subjunctive is never used in case ol indirect
speech governed by a main clause in the present tense in the Aeneid, whereas it
contains 6! present subjunctives and 10 perlect subjunctives in indirect speech.
Only live linal clauses governed by a present tense taking its base in relerence time
contain a pluperlect or imperlect subjunctive (against 2 present subjunctives).

22
whereas the other discourse modes used lrom a base in relerence time simply
get the addition transpcscJ, the Jircctin mcJc has been given a separate name. 1he
reason is that it slightly dillers lrom its counterpart, the rcistcrin mcJc, and,
moreover, occurs lar more olten than rcistcrin, which is rare.
6 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
ltruscan peoples in book . within these catalogues, the narrator
provides elaborate inlormation about the participating peoples. 1his
inlormation is universal lrom the point ol view ol the lictive world,
the present tense cc|unt in line 14 is generally valid in that context
(as is uiuunt in 14), but not contemporaneous to the narrators time.

una ingens Amiterna cohors priscique Quirites,
lreti manus omnis oliuileraeque mutuscae,
qui Nomentum urbem, qui kosea rura Velini,
qui 1etricae horrentis rupes montemque 8euerum
casperiamque col unt lorulosque et llumen limellae,
qui 1iberim labarimque bi bunt, quos lrigida mi si t
Nursia, et Ortinae classes populique latini...

with him came Amiternums vast cohort, and the ancient Quirites,
the whole band ol lretum and olive-bearing mutusca,
those who dwell in Nomentums city and the kosean country
by Velinus, on 1etricas rugged crags and mount 8everus,
in Xasperia and loruli, and by limellas stream,
those who drink ol 1iber and labaris, those whom cold Nursia sent,
the Ortine squadrons, the latin peoples

1his passage also exemplilies the use ol the perlect tense in the
transposed reporting mode: the perlect tense lorm misit in line 1
denotes a state ol allairs that took place in the remote past ol
relerence time. 1he city ol Nursia has sent the people which are
now, i.e. in relerence time, marching on the plains ol ltaly, hence
the perlect tense lorm misit.
2!

Apart lrom the perlect and present tenses, luture tense lorms also
occur in one instance ol the transposed reporting mode (12.00). 1he
narrator announces that the day will come (crit) that 1urnus will
regret taking lallas armor (cl. linkster 1999). 1he imperlect tense
lorm spcrauant in example [9] is an instance ol an imperlect tense

2!
lt has to be said, however, that the base olten is not clear in case ol perlect
tense lorms denoting states ol allairs that took place in the remote past ol relerence
time. 1hat is, one olten cannot, and perhaps should not, decide between normal
reporting and transposed reporting: what matters is that the state ol allairs took
place belore relerence time (i.e. ana|cpsis in narratological terms). 8uch ambiguous
perlect tense lorms are lound, lor instance, in lacts about the origin ol a character,
e.g. in .!9 where cnuit is a perlect tense lorm denoting a state ol allairs both
anterior to the narrators time anJ anterior to relerence time.
lorm in transposed report. lt obviously denotes a state ol allairs that
is contemporaneous to an orientation moment in the past ol
relerence time (i.e. when everything was still peacelul).
1ranspcscJ narrativc, like narrative presented lrom the time ol the
narrator, may contain perlect, imperlect and pluperlect tense lorms.
1ransposed narratives are narratives which, lor some reason, are
presented lrom the point ol relerence time. 1he reason lor this may
be that the narrator lirst inlorms his readers about one character
and later on lills them in on the actions ol another by engaging in a
short narrative (e.g. 9.1ll.). Another reason may be that the narrator
relates these states ol allairs because it is not until this point in his
story that they are relevant, and l think we should read the passage
below in this way. uido has decided to commit suicide not only
because ol Aeneas behaviour, but also because ol signs she received
earlier.

1um uero inlelix latis exterrita uido
mortem orat, taedet caeli conuexa tueri.
quo magis inceptum peragat lucemque relinquat,
ui Ji t , turicrcmis cum Jcna i mpcncrct aris,
(ncrrcnJum Jictu) |aticcs nircsccrc sacrcs
jusauc in cusccnum sc ucrtcrc uina crucrcm,
ncc uisum nu||i, ncn ipsi cj j at a scrcri.

1hen, indeed, awed by her doom, luckless uido
prays lor death, she is weary ol gazing on the arch ol heaven.
And to make her more surely lullil her purpose and leave the light,
she had seen, as she laid her gilts on the altars ablaze with incense
learlul to tell the holy water darken
and the outpoured wine change into loathsome gore.
Ol this sight she spoke to no one not even her sister.

1he states ol allairs ol uiJit, impcncrct and cjjata together lorm a
narrated sequence ol events which is anterior to relerence time. 1he
narrator looks back on a separate time line on which these events
took place while taking his base in the relerence time ol crat, tacJct
and the subjunctives pcraat and rc|inuat.
24
1he narrator has thus

24
Ol course, it is not only the narrator who looks back on these events: the
subjunctives suggest that uido hersell is also remembering them (i.e. localization,
see lal 199
2
, ue }ong [198] 2004
2
).
8 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
stopped Jircctin the states ol allairs (see below) to narratc what
happened in the past ol relerence time, while relerence time
remains his base (i.e. the discourse mode changes whereas the base
remains the same).
1ranspcscJ Jcscripticn contains present tense lorms which denote
unbounded situations in relerence time, connected to each other by
means ol spatial rather than temporal adverbs (see lroon, this
volume). 1he example below contains nine present tense lorms,
none ol which advances relerence time. lowever, adverbs do
indicate spatia| progression through the scenery: lirst a description is
given ol how the waves break on the sand, then the narrator turns
his and our eyes to the huge clills enclosing the scenery and
proceeds to describe the part in the middle ol these clills. Non-visual
characteristics end this description.

[1!] Vergil AcnciJ 1.19-169
lst in secessu longo locus: insula portum
elli ci t obiectu laterum, quibus omnis ab alto
lrangi tur inque sinus sci ndi t sese unda reductos.
linc atque hinc uastae rupes geminique mi nantur
in caelum scopuli, quorum sub uertice late
aequora tuta si l ent, tum siluis scaena coruscis
desuper, horrentique atrum nemus i mmi net umbra.
lronte sub aduersa scopulis pendentibus antrum,
intus aquae dulces uiuoque sedilia saxo,
nympharum domus. hic lessas non uincula nauis
ulla tenent, unco non al l i gat ancora morsu.

1here in a deep inlet lies a spot, where an island lorms a harbor
with the barrier ol its sides, on which every wave lrom the main
is broken, then parts into receding ripples.
On either side loom heavenward huge clills and twin
peaks, beneath whose crest lar and wide is the stillness
ol sheltered water, above, too, is a background ol shimmering woods
with an overhanging grove, black with gloomy shade.
Lnder the brow ol the lronting clill is a cave ol hanging rocks,
within are lresh waters and seats in the living stone,
a haunt lor nymphs. lere no letters imprison weary ships,
no anchor holds them last with hooked bite.

Ol course, present tense descriptions ol scenery such as this one are
ambiguous with respect to the base used: the narrator may be
describing actual places lrom a base in his own point in time, and the
reader is lelt wondering whether this place could possibly be real.
1he base is always clear, however, in case ol the use ol the so-
called historic present: these present tense lorms are valid in
relerence time alone and clearly identily relerence time as their
base. 1hese present tense lorms lorm part ol the Jircctin mcJc.

uircctin VcJc

1he Jircctin mcJc is the counterpart ol the rcistcrin mcJc.
concretely, they have in common that their present tense lorms
denote states ol allairs that are valid in a relatively short period ol
time, either the moment ol speech or relerence time. 1hey represent
what the narrator experiences in his immediate environment, i.e. his
uasc. As such, both the registering mode and the directing mode are
characterized by the use ol the present tense. 1he perlect tense and
the imperlect tense also occur in the directing mode, when they
indicate states ol allairs that happened or were happening
immediately belore relerence time.
2
lowever, instances ol these
tenses in the registering mode are not lound in the AcnciJ.
1he narrator ol the AcnciJ rarely registers what he experiences in
his own immediate environment. ln contrast to the rare occurrence
ol the registering mode in the AcnciJ, its counterpart, the directing
mode, is the discourse mode used most lrequently. ln this discourse
mode, the narrator registers what he experiences, or rather prctcnJs
tc cxpcricncc, in the relerence time ol his lictive world, and the
relerence time advances as the narrator goes through his story.
26

1his means that, since relerence time lunctions as a base, the uasc
also advances, like present time does in real lile: as one speaks, time
ticks away. 1his specilic type ol temporal progression is what
characterizes the directing mode. 1he particular type ol temporal
progression in the directing mode is explained best by means ol an
example in which advancement ol relerence time is indisputable,

2
l.g. inccnsa cst in 12.2!8 (example [9] above), and tcncuant and |amucuant in
2.209ll.: jit scnitus spumantc sa|c, iamuc arua tcncuant | arJcntisuc ccu|cs sujjccti
sanuinc ct ini | siui|a |amucuant |inuis uiurantiuus cra. (Adema 2004).

26
cl. linkster (1990: 22) and lroon (2002), who describe the use ol the present
tense by means ol the metaphor ol (the pretense ol) an eye-witness report.
60 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
such as the subsequent linishing ol the three best contesters in the
running contest in book .

[14] Vergil AcnciJ .!!-!!9
emi cat luryalus et munere uictor amici
prima tenet, plausuque uol at lremituque secundo.
post lelymus subi t et nunc tertia palma uiores.

luryalus darts by and, winning by the graces ol his lriend,
takes lirst place, and llies on amid lavoring applause and cheers.
lehind come lelymus, and uiores, now third prize.

lere, the relerence time advances lrom the time in which luryalus
emerges and linishes (cmicat, tcnct, uc|at) to that in which lelymus
completes the race (suuit) and ultimately to uiores linish (nunc). 1he
present tense lorms represent a base in relerence time, and,
therelore, it is not only relerence time that advances: the base and
the narrator are inextricably linked to relerence time and, as a
result, they also move ahead. 1he temporal progression seems
similar to that in real lile, relerence time, base and narrator advance
as story time is progressing, like time ticking away in, lor instance,
the sports commentaries ol our own time. Nevertheless, there is a
very important dillerence between the advancement ol relerence
time and that ol real time: whereas real time moves by itsell,
relerence time does not. lt is, in all respects, the narrator who makes
time tick.
2

ln short, the narrator is responsible lor progression ol relerence
time as he advances along the time line ol his story and, as such, is in
control. moreover, he still has access to his knowledge about the
story as a whole (Quinn, 1968: 91), while using relerence time as his
base, and may, lor instance, reler to the lurther course ol events
lrom a base in relerence time (e.g. 9.!1). 1he narrator ol the AcnciJ

2
1he advancement ol relerence time is olten marked by means ol adverbs
indicating the sequence ol the states ol allairs such as tum, JcinJc, inJc, ninc and
Jcninc. Apart lrom these adverbs which indicate the sequence in a rather neutral
way, the narrator also uses sequencing adverbs with a sense ol suddenness or
surprise such as ccntinuc, cccc, cxtcmp|c, rcpcntc, suuitc, nunc, ccius, tum ucrc and
perhaps even iam (see kisselada & lroon 2004). l would like to stress here that it is
not the narrator lor whom these states ol allairs are surprising: he intends to make
it apparent that the characters were not expecting this (i.e. localization), at the
same time evoking a leeling ol surprise in nis auJicncc.
may also add his own rellections when he uses the historic present
in rhetorical questions and apostrophes.
28
when he relates how
lallas is carried away lrom the battlelield, the narrator adds his own
comment to this horrible event by means ol an apostrophe,
containing the present tense lorms aujcrt and |inuis (which are
contemporaneous to relerence time).

at socii multo gemitu lacrimisque
impositum scuto relerunt lallanta lrequentes.
dolor atque decus magnum rediture parenti,
haec te prima dies bello dedi t, haec eadem aulert,
cum tamen ingentis kutulorum l i nqui s aceruos!

lut with many moans and tears his lriends
throng round lallas and bear him back lying on his shield.
O you who will go home as a great griel and yet great glory to your
lather, this day lirst gave you to war, this also takes you lrom it,
the day when yet you leave behind vast piles ol kutulian deaths.

As is also shown by the luture participle rcJiturc and the proximal
pronoun nacc, the narrator maintains a base in relerence time while
taking his time to comment. ly keeping a base in relerence time and
commenting on lallas death as he is taken lrom the battlelield, the
narrator is able to both maintain and enlorce the picture ol lallas
lying on his shield, thereby creating a powerlul dramatic ellect.
As chale (1994: 208) points out, the present tense as used in
stories is merely a prctcnsc that the speaker perceives the state ol
allairs at the moment ol speech. 8uch a view ol the present tense
takes into consideration that the narrator shows that he knows more
than his adopted position in time, il pursued in lull, would allow.
chales theory provides another lruitlul perspective on the use ol
the present tense taking its base in relerence time in the AcnciJ. lis
term Jisp|accJ immcJiacy (1994: 19ll.) describes the possibility lor
written liction ol combining leatures ol language which are
immediate, i.e. which reler to the time and place ol a speaker, and
leatures ol language which are displaced, i.e. leatures that reler to

28
An example ol a present tense lorm related to a base in relerence time in a
rhetorical question is lound in 4.66. An apostrophe which contains questions and
has an announcing lunction starts in 11.66.
62 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
other times and places than the speakers (e.g. his past or luture).
lmmediate deictic adverbs such as now and today are lor instance
combined with displaced past tense lorms in lnglish literature.
29
ln
these terms, the narrator ol the AcnciJ combines the Jcixis ol
immediacy (both adverbs and tense) with the kncw|cJc ol
displacement, hence creating an ellect ol Jisp|accJ immcJiacy.
!0

A metaphor explaining the use ol the present tense as a basic
tense ol the story in the AcnciJ should allow lor this displaced
immediacy. lt may be lruitlul to see the narrator ol the AcnciJ in the
role ol the Jircctcr cj a p|ay which is taking place on a mental stage
not merely simultaneously to his directions, but exactly uccausc cj
tncsc Jirccticns (lakker 200: 169). 1hat is, the narrator evokes the
events and situations ol his story in the minds ol his readers by
uttering them (cl. langacker 2001: 269). 1he term Jircctin mcJc
(instead ol, lor instance, immcJiatc or mimctic stancc, terms used by
lakker 199c and lroon 2002) makes clear that the use ol relerence
time as an alternative base is a presentational game ol which both
narrator and reader are aware (lakker 199c: 8), as is illustrated in
the invocation in [16].
!1
1he questions in this sequence are part ol
the reporting mode, whereas the relative clause (nunc ait) concerns
the events on stage.

Quis mihi nunc tot acerba deus, quis carmine caedes
diuersas obitumque ducum, quos aequore toto
inque uicem nunc 1urnus agi t, nunc 1roius heros,
expedi at7 tanton pl acui t concurrere motu,
luppiter, aeterna gentis in pace luturas7

which god can now unlold lor me so many horrors, who in song can

29
8ee chale (1994: 20) lor an example.

!0
l simplily chales distinction between immediacy and displacement lor
claritys sake. llease note that the present tense does not occur in chales examples
ol Jisp|accJ immcJiacy. As lar as deixis is concerned, his Jisp|accJ immcJiacy combines
proximate (i.e. immediate) spatiotemporal adverbs with past (displaced) tenses
(chale 1994: 2!6). le states that this use ol the past tense to establish displaced
immediacy is more ellective than an extended use ol the historic present, above all
because displaced immediacy creates the duality that is essential to art. (chale
1994: 2!6) Although in the AcnciJ such duality may not be created by means ol
combining proximal adverbs with past tense lorms, its occurrence is certainly
shown in the combination ol immediate deixis and displaced knowledge.

!1
cl. also 10.16!ll.
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu lA8l8 lN Vlkoll8 ANu 6!
tell such diverse deaths, and the lall ol captains, whom now 1urnus,
now the 1rojan hero, drives in turn all over the plain7
was it your will, }upiter, that in so vast a shock nations should clash
that therealter would dwell in everlasting peace7

lt seems as il the narrator is standing hallway between the stage and
his own world: one leg stands besides the stage, a position lrom
which he may report and ask the gods lor help, and the other is
placed upon this stage, thus enabling him to ellectively direct what
is going on live on stage.
Not only does the metaphor ol a mental stage allow lor a narrator
in control ol what is happening now in the lictive world, it also
leaves room lor the long recognized visual aspect ol the style ol the
narrator ol the AcnciJ, on which the metaphor ol the eye-witness
report locuses (cl. also lowler 199).
1he narrator ol the AcnciJ seems to use the directing mode to give
his readers the illusion ol actually witnessing the directed states ol
allairs whereas they are, at the same time, still guided by the
narrator. 8eeing the narrator ol the AcnciJ as a director in charge ol
what happens on the (virtual or mental) stage combines well with
views on those epics which were orally composed. 1he epic genre is
seen as a genre ol pcrjcrmancc: the poet does not merely narrate his
story, but perlorms it (lakker 199b: , 200: 1).
!2
ln writing his
epic poem, Vergil uses the present tense to achieve the ellect ol an
oral perlormer who entertains his audience by conjuring up events
and situations on a (mental) stage, as he advances through the times
and places ol this lictive world (cl. lleischman 1990: 9!).
!!

8 ccnc|usicn

ln this paper, l have given an overview ol the ways ol presentation
used by the narrator ol the AcnciJ, and l have paid special attention
to how we may recognize the discourse mode and base used.

!2
8ee Nagy (1992, 1996) and lakker (199b, 1999) lor a discussion ol the lomeric
epics as perlormed poetry. lleischmann (1990) discusses medieval perlormed epics.

!!
lerhaps Vergil took this lrom lnnius (cl. Ann. 1.8!-100). Note that lomer does
not use the present tense as a basic tense ol his story. le has other means to
verbalize things as il they are seen (lakker 199b: , see also lakker 200).
64 8L7ANNl m. AulmA
Lnlortunately, it is impossible to give unequivocal criteria such as:
whenever you see nunc, the narrator is reporting. lnstead, it is the
combination ol adverbs, tenses and content which leads the reader
to a certain interpretation ol these adverbs, tenses and content.
A division into discourse modes seems to provide a uselul
alternative to the somewhat vague distinction between the
jcrcrcunJ and uackrcunJ in a story or other written text (8mith
200!: !4-!). 1he directing mode is the most important mode in the
AcnciJ, and we might even call it the delault mode. 1he other modes
may be seen as modes with which the narrator provides material
that is in some way subsidiary to the directing mode or, rather,
material that prcviJcs tnc prc|iminarics in order to make the directing
possible. 1he reporting mode, lor instance, may be seen as subsidiary
to the directing mode in that it structures the story and provides the
(lirst century l.c.) reader with the inlormation necessary to
understand the story and see it in the light ol his own time. 1he
description mode provides the literal background, in that it sets up
the stage on which the directed states ol allairs take place.
classilying the AcnciJ into dillerent sections according to
discourse modes and bases may also prove to be lruitlul in
contrasting this particular epic to works ol other genres, lor instance
historiography, or to other works within the epic genre, as lroon
does in her contribution (this volume) on Ovid.
!4

!4
ln my dissertation, the AcnciJ is contrasted with parts ol livys Au 0ruc ccnJita.
michiel van der leur has contrasted the use ol tenses and discourse modes in the
Aeneid with an excerpt ol book 1! ol 8ilius unica as part ol his masters thesis
(Vrije Lniversiteit 2006).

clAl1lk llVl

ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu 1ll L8l Ol 1lN8l8 lN OVlu8
V1AVokuo55

caroline l.m. lroon

1 ntrcJucticn: oviJ as a 5tatic 5tcrytc||cr
1

1here are many ways in which Ovids Vctamcrpncscs dillers lrom
more prototypical manilestations ol the epic genre like Vergils
AcnciJ. A widespread view lor instance, elaborated in literary studies
like uscher (191) and 8olodow (1988) is that the narrative ol the
Vctamcrpncscs is static and pictorial, especially when compared to
the dynamic way ol narrative presentation in the AcnciJ. ln my
contribution, l would like to show that this observation can be
supported and qualilied by a linguistic analysis ol the internal
coherence ol a number ol stories in the Vctamcrpncscs.
2
ll we start
lrom the common assumption that coherence in narrative is
essentially based on the Jynamic progress ol successive events, a
relevant question would be how textual coherence and textual
advancement is achieved in a narrative text considered to be quite

1
1his article is an adaptation ol papers read at the !1tn ntcrnaticna| cc||cuium cn
atin inuistics (lrussels, march 200) and the uutcn atinist uay .e (leiden,
}anuary 2006). l thank michiel van der leur, larm linkster, and the students ol the
master seminar atin 1cxt inuistics (spring 2006) lor their critical remarks on an
earlier version. l also thank 8uzanne Adema lor many stimulating discussions on the
topic.

2
1he corpus consists ol ten stories in books 2, 4, 6 and 8 ol the Vctamcrpncscs.
lor details see 1able ! below. As yet, the structure and coherence ol individual
stories in the Vctamcrpncscs has received little attention in Ovid lcrscnun. kare
examples are the analysis ol the lygmalion story by llug (1999) and ol the story ol
the daughters ol Anius by von Albrecht (1999: 201-20), both based on the use ol
tenses. Lselul observations on episode structure more in general can be lound in
uscher (191: 2!8 l.) and lernbeck (196). lor an overview ol the abundant
literature on the macrostructure ol the Vctamcrpncscs as a whole, see crabbe (1981)
and 1sitsiou-chelidoni (1999: 269-21, note 2), not included in these overviews is the
more recent study by wheeler (2001).
66 cAkOllNl l.m. lkOON
static in nature. 1extual coherence, more specilically use ol tenses
creating coherence, thus lunctions as a starting point and lrame ol
relerence lor this discussion ol an essentially literary observation.
lundamental lor my analysis is the insight that texts are usually
not monolithic, and that narrative texts rarely consist ol
sequentially related events only. ln addition to such narrative
sequences in a strict sense, the episodes ol a narrative may also
contain, lor instance, descriptive or argumentative passages. As l
argued in earlier studies (lroon 2000, 2002), and has also been shown
by 8mith (200!), these alternating narrative, descriptive,
argumentative, etc. passages can be described in terms ol various
dillerent Jisccursc mcJcs, a term l derive lrom 8mith.
!
1hese
discourse modes, which, in a sense, can be seen as the linguistic and
local correlate ol what in todays research into text linguistics is
usually called tcxt typc, can each be characterized by a dillerent set ol
linguistic leatures. 1hese leatures rellect dillerent principles ol
textual advancement and, hence, ol textual coherence.
l assume that in Ovids Vctamcrpncscs not unlike what we lind
in Vergils AcnciJ individual stories are commonly mixtures ol
three dillerent types ol discourse mode, which each display dillerent
principles ol text progression: Narrativc (in a strict sense), kcpcrt and
ucscripticn. lowever, the presentation ol the stories in the
Vctamcrpncscs seems to diller, as we will see later on, in two
important ways lrom Vergils approach in the AcnciJ. lirstly, l will
argue that in the Vctamcrpncscs the discourse mode uescription is
used more pervasively and lreely than in the AcnciJ, and secondly, l
will try to show that in the Vctamcrpncscs, in contrast to what
appears to be the case in the AcnciJ (see linkster 1999 and Adema
this volume), the advancement ol the story usually takes its base in
the time ol the narrator and not in relerence time.
4

Alter an introduction ol the various discourse modes and the
general use ol tenses in the Vctamcrpncscs (section 2), l will
concentrate in section ! on the particular use ol the historic present

!
ln lroon (2000, 2002) l use the term discourse mode in a dillerent way. lor the
sake ol clarity, and in conlormity with Ademas contribution in this volume, l adopt
8miths terminology here.

4
ly relerence time l mean the nic ct nunc ol the story, i.e. the particular moment
that is considered at a certain point in the narrative. 8ee also Adema (this volume).
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu 1ll L8l Ol 1lN8l8 lN OVlu8 V1AVokuo55 6
in this poem, which will appear to be the pivotal point in a
discussion on Ovids narrative style, when compared to, lor instance,
Vergils style in the AcnciJ.

2 uisccursc VcJcs, 1cxt AJvanccmcnt, anJ ntcrprctaticn cj 1cnsc

A good starting point lor the discussion, as already observed above,
is the lact that texts (literary or not) are usually not monolithic. lor
an essentially narrative text this means that it is not only composed
ol series ol sequentially related events (which is a common
delinition ol the narrative text type), but also, lor instance, ol a
number ol smaller or larger descriptive, argumentative or
inlormative segments. 1hese alternating segments can be described
in terms ol various dillerent Jisccursc mcJcs. 8mith (200!)
distinguishes six ol these modes: Narrativc, kcpcrt, ucscripticn,
njcrmaticn, Arumcnt and uircct uisccursc.
lach ol these modes is

characterized by a number ol distinguishing principles ol textual
coherence and textual advancement and, therelore, by a distinct set
ol linguistic leatures. A passage in the narrative discourse mode, lor
instance, is assumed to advance in a dillerent way than a descriptive
passage, thus displaying a dillerent set ol linguistic coherence
phenomena.
8imilar to the story ol the AcnciJ (Adema, this volume), the
individual stories in the Vctamcrpncscs mainly involve the discourse
modes Narrative, uescription and keport. loth works also contain, ol
course, a considerable amount ol uirect uiscourse, which l will leave
out ol my discussion.
6
As hinted upon above, however, the
presentation ol the stories in the Vctamcrpncscs appears to diller in
two signilicant ways lrom the presentation ol the story in the AcnciJ:

ln the Vctamcrpncscs, the narrative advancement ol the story
usually takes its base in the time ol the narrator
(retrospective base, basic tense is the perlect), and not in

8mith does not claim exhaustivity on this point.

6
l.e., in as lar as they do not have the lorm ol an extended embedded story,
which is olten the case in the Vctamcrpncscs.
relerence time (story-internal base, basic tense is the
historic present),
ln the Vctamcrpncscs, the discourse mode uescription is used
more pervasively and with more variation than in the AcnciJ,
displaying a signilicant use ol the present tense.

ln the remainder ol this article, l intend to relate the qualilication ol
Ovids narrative style as relatively static to (i) the observation that
the investigated sample ol stories displays a more lrequent and a
more varied use ol the discourse mode uescription than ol the
discourse mode Narrative, and (ii) to the observation that il the poet
Jccs use a narrative discourse mode, this mode is usually short-lived
and more olten characterized by a retrospective base (= base in
narrators time) than by an internal base (= base in relerence time).

1he use ol tenses will serve as the main guide line in the discussion.

2.1 uisccursc VcJcs

let us lirst have a closer look at the various discourse modes and
their characteristic leatures, by means ol an illustrative passage. 1he
excerpt below is taken lrom the story ol lrocne and lhilomela in the
sixth book ol the Vctamcrpncscs, and displays a clear alternation ol
the discourse modes Narrative (NAk), uescription (ul8), and keport
(kll).

[1] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 6.!-62 (lrocne and lhilomela)
8

iugulum lhilomela parabat NAk
spemque suae mortis uiso conceperat ense,
ille indignantem et nomen patris usque uocantem
luctantemque loqui comprensam lorcipe linguam
abstul i t ense lero.

radix mi cat ultima linguae, ul8

1hese observations seem to be in line with 8olodows conclusion (1988: 2, 1!2)

that Ovids narrative style, in contrast to Vergils, does not allow any ol Ovids
characters to engage our interest lor long, and that it is the author himsell (rather
than any ligure in the poem) who is the center ol interest.

8
lor the latin text, l lollow the edition ol 1arrant (2004). 1he translations are,
with slight adaptations in the representation ol the latin tenses, taken lrom u.l.
lill, oviJs Vctamcrpncscs, vol. 1-2, warminster (198-1992).
ipsa i acet terraeque tremens i mmurmurat atrae,
utque salire solet mutilatae cauda colubrae,
pal pi tat et moriens dominae uestigia quaeri t.

hoc quoque post lacinus (uix ausim credere) lertur kll
saepe sua lacerum repetisse libidine corpus.

lhilomela was ollering him her throat
and, when she saw his sword, had conceived a hope ol death,
as her tongue protested, calling all the time on the name
ol her lather, and struggling to speak, he caught it in pincers
and took it out with his cruel sword.

1he end ol its root llickers while
the tongue itsell lays trembling and muttering on the black earth,
and as the tail ol a mutilated snake will jump,
it quivers and, as it dies, is looking lor its mistresses tracks.

lven alter this crime (l would scarcely dare to believe it), they say
he olten sought her torn body again in his lust.

Narrativc is delined by 8mith as a mode which is characterized by
cvcnts and statcs, and in which advancement is mainly achieved by
the succession ol bounded events.
9
1he interpretation ol sequence
may arise when verbal lorms convey that the initial endpoint ol one
event lollows the endpoint ol another, like in the sequence ucni uiJi
uici. 1ogether these states ol allairs lorm a series ol subsequent
relerence times along which the narrative evolves. whether an
event is bounded depends on the semantic type ol state ol allairs
(dynamic or static), and on the aspectual viewpoint (perlective or
imperlective) lrom which the state ol allairs is presented.
Absent in 8miths account, but essential lor the present
investigation, is the insight that it is possible to distinguish two
dillerent narrator positions (or uascs, cl. also the contribution by
Adema):
rctrcspcctivc position (base in narrators time), basic tense
(i.e. the tense that is responsible lor the advancement ol
relerence time) in latin is the perlect. lrom this position the

9
ln addition, narrative advancement may be indicated by temporal adverbs like
JcinJc, tum, etcetera. lor the dillerence between states (or situations) and events,
see e.g. linkster (1990: 16-19).
narrator recounts, with his own time as temporal anchor,
what took place in relerence time.
10

(stcry-)intcrna| position (base in relerence time), basic tense
(i.e. the tense that is responsible lor the advancement ol
relerence time) in latin is the (historic) present. ly using
this position, the narrator pretends that the moment ol
narration coincides with relerence time, i.e. the moment in
the story at which the narrated events actually take place. As
the relerence time advances, the base also moves.
11

ligure 1: Narrator positions in the narrative discourse mode
12

retrospective

basic tense: perlect
implication ol distance between relerence
time and narratorJaudience
relerence time advances
internal

basic tense: present
relerence time and narrators position are
pretended to coincide
both relerence time and narrator advance

ln example [1] above, the lirst live lines are presented in the
discourse mode Narrative, and lrom a retrospective narrator
position. 1here is one bounded event in the perlect tense, by means
ol which the relerence time ol the story is moved up: austu|it, the
cutting oll ol lhilomelas tongue. ln addition there is one unbounded
event in the imperlect, parauat, which is valid during (and belore)
the relerence time indicated by austu|it, but which does not, by itsell,
serve to advance the story in a lorward direction. 1he same holds lor
the state implied by the pluperlect ccnccpcrat.
1he discourse mode kcpcrt is also characterized by events and
states (including certain types ol general statives
1!
), but in this

10
1his is what Adema (this volume) relers to as the narrative mode, see also n.
1.

11
1his is what Adema (this volume) relers to as the directing mode, which, as l
will argue below, seems to be a less relevant concept as lar as Ovid is concerned.

12
ligure 1 is adapted lrom Adema (200). N stands lor Narrator.

1!
1he term cncra| stativcs is reserved by 8mith (200!) lor patterns and
regularities, both generic and non-generic.
particular mode, the individual events are not necessarily related to
one another in a strictly consecutive way: rather, they are each,
individually, related to the speakers time. what advances the text in
this mode is not the dynamism ol subsequent events creating
subsequent relerence times, but rather the position ol the reporter,
which gradually advances in time. ln example [1] rcpctissc (the lact
that 1hereus kept visiting lhilomela on a regular basis) is presented
in the discourse mode keport, as is indicated by a number ol
elements in the surrounding context: uix ausim crcJcrc, jcrtur, and
sacpc are all signals ol a speaker reporting past events as essentially
related to his own present rather than to each other.
ucscripticn, linally, is a mode which is characterized mainly by
states and ongoing events, as well as by repeated, habitual or
otherwise generalizing events.
14
1he relerence time in this mode is
stable or suspended, without dynamism, and the text advancement
is spatial rather than temporal in nature: the text advances as the
locus ol interest moves lrom one part ol the depicted scene or object
to another. 1he interpretation ol tense is not, as in the narrative
discourse mode, continuous and progressive, but anaphoric: all
sentences ol a passage in the description mode have the same
relerence time, which they usually borrow lrom a state ol allairs in
the directly preceding context. ln example [1] the central part ol the
passage is presented in the description mode. 1he tense ol the states
ol allairs described (micat, iacct, immurmurat, pa|pitat, uacrit) is
anaphoric in the sense that they do not each by themselves
introduce a new relerence time, but rather take their relerence time
lrom the preceding austu|it and the moment ol the tongue lalling
onto the ground, implied by austu|it.
1he above can be summarized as lollows:

14
8mith (200!) uses the term cncra| stativcs lor the latter category, see also note
1!.
1able 1: characteristics ol the main discourse modes in the
Vctamcrpncscs and the AcnciJ
1

Narrativc kcpcrt ucscripticn
1ypc cj statc cj
ajjairs
events
states
events
states
general statives
states
ongoing events
general statives
(patterns)
1ypc cj tcxt
aJvanccmcnt
temporal
(advancement ol
relerence time)
temporal
(advancement ol
the position ol
the speaker)
spatial
ntcrprctaticn cj
tcnsc
continuous deictic (related
to the speaker)
anaphoric
csiticn cj spcakcr
(- uasc)
speakers time
(= retrospective)

relerence time
(= internal)
speakers time speakers time
(= retrospective)

relerence time
(= internal)

2.2 1nc 0sc cj 1cnscs in oviJ anJ \cri|: 5cmc uypctncscs

Alter this briel introduction ol the concept ol discourse mode we can
now turn to the actual use ol tenses in the Vctamcrpncscs, and the
hypotheses we might lormulate in the light ol the dynamicJstatic
discussion. ln view ol the common evaluation ol Ovids narrative
style as more static than Vergils, we might expect to lind, in
comparison to the AcnciJ, a relatively high amount ol pluperlects
and imperlects in the Vctamcrpncscs (both tenses which do not
advance relerence time), and a relatively low amount ol perlects, the
relerence time advancer par cxcc||cncc. 1his expectation is, however,
not borne out by the statistics, as appears lrom 1ables 2 and !, which

1
1he discourse mode Narrative might be split into two subcategories,
according to whether the base ol the narrator is in speakers time or in relerence
time. with regard to Vergil, Adema (this volume) relers to these two subcategories
as Narrative and uirecting, respectively. lor the sake ol clarity, and because the
directing submode does not seem to play a signilicant role in Ovid (see below), l
preler to present the two submodes under one heading.
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu 1ll L8l Ol 1lN8l8 lN OVlu8 V1AVokuo55 !
show the distribution ol narrative tenses in main clauses in a sample
ol 1604 verses lrom Vergils AcnciJ and ol 1!4 verses lrom Ovids
Vctamcrpncscs. 1he data lor Vergil are lrom linkster (1999), those
lor Ovid are based on my own sample ol ten stories.
16

1able 2: uistribution ol narrative tenses in main clauses in Vergils
AcnciJ
1
and Ovids Vctamcrpncscs
18

narr. pr narr. pl auth. pl
19

(report)
impl plqpl total
46 12 19 66 1! 692
6/ 18/ !/ 10/ 2/ 100/
Virgil
(1604
lines)

440 2!9 28 89 !6 8!2
!/ 29/ !/ 11/ 4/ 100/
Ovid
(1!4
lines)

16
1he sample is arbitrary in the sense that the stories chosen lormed the
assignment lor the uutch linal school exams in latin in 200. Although it is my
impression that the sample is more or less representative lor the Vctamcrpncscs as a
whole, there are some indications that in the later books (when myth gradually
turns into history and the subject matter partially overlaps with that ol the AcnciJ,
cl. also 8olodow 1988, ch. 4) Ovids way ol presenting the story comes closer to
Vergils style in the AcnciJ. ln a sample consisting ol two stories lrom book 1! and 14
(1!.408-, 14.-1), the bounded events appear to be almost as lrequent as the
unbounded events, whereas in live ol the ten stories ol the original sample the
unbounded events clearly outweigh the bounded events (research papers by cecilia
Orbn and laulien Out, master seminar on atin 1cxt inuistics (spring 2006)). 8ee
also below.

1
Acn. look 2, book 4 (1-400), book (1-400), the data lor the AcnciJ are based on
linkster (1999). lor more statistics on the AcnciJ see also Quinn (1968).

18
lnstances that are ambiguous between a present and a perlect reading, l have
assigned to either the category perlect or the category present, mainly on the basis
ol content and surrounding context. 1he inaccuracy that this may have caused in
the statistics is, however, negligible.

19
Auth. pl. stands lor authorial perlect, a term which linkster more or less
seems to use lor what l call, in this article, the use ol the perlect in the report mode.
1able !: uistribution ol narrative tenses in main clauses in ten stories
ol Ovids Vctamcrpncscs

narr.
pr
narr.
pl
auth. pl
(report)
impl plqpl total
1. mercury, lerse &
Aglauros
Vct. 2.08-8!2 (12 l.)

48
20

6/

24
28/

1
1/

8
9/

4
/

8
100/
2. lyramus & 1hisbe
Vct. 4.-166 (112 l.)
2
42/
2!
!6/
6
9/
6
9/
2
!/
64
100/
!. lermaphroditus &
8almacis
Vct. 4.288-!88 (101 l.)

40
6!/

20
!2/

-

!
/

-

6!
100/
4. Niobe
Vct. 6.146-!12 (16 l.)
46
49/
28
!0/
- 9
10/
11
12/
94
100/
. lycian larmers
Vct. 6.!1!-!81 (69 l.)
22
49/
1!
29/
4
9/
!
/
!
/
4
100/
6. lrocne & lhilomela
Vct. 6.424-64 (21 l.)
119
66/
42
2!/
- 1
8/

!/
181
100/
. 8cylla & minos
Vct. 8.6-11 (146 l.)
14
!0/
11
2!/
!
6/
1!
28/
6
1!/
4
100/
8. Althaea & meleager
Vct. 8.414-!2 (128 l.)
40
/
2
!4/
- 6
8/
2
!/
!
100/
9. lhilemon & laucis
Vct. 8.611-24 (114 l.)
41
48/
2!
2/
1!
1/
8
9/
1
1/
86
100/
10. lrysichthon
Vct. 8.!8-88 (141 l.)
4!
46/
!0
!2/
1
1/
18
20/
2
2/
94
100/
1O1Al (1!4 lines) 440
!/
2!9
29/
28
!/
89
11/
!6
4/
8!2
100/

what do these ligures tell us7 lor one thing, that the use ol the
backgrounding tenses imperlect and pluperlect (which usually
designate states and ongoing events) is not signilicantly more
lrequent in the Ovid sample than in the Vergil sample. lence, the
impression ol a static or pictorial presentation in the

20
Not included are 12 present tense lorms ol which the designation ol actual or
historic reading is ambiguous (11 verb lorms in lines -82, and cst in l. 61).
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu 1ll L8l Ol 1lN8l8 lN OVlu8 V1AVokuo55
Vctamcrpncscs cannot simply be ascribed to, and explained by, a
relatively lrequent use ol these tenses.
Another observation lrom the 1ables above is that the relative
lrequency ol the narrative perlect (i.e. the lrequency ol the
narrative perlect as compared to the other tenses) is signilicantly
higher in the Vctamcrpncscs-sample than in the AcnciJ-sample. 1here
is a big dillerence also in an absolute sense between the lrequency ol
the perlect tense in the Ovid-sample and in the Vergil-sample:
whereas in the Vctamcrpncscs-sample, the perlect occurs once every
. lines, in the AcnciJ-sample this is the case only once in every 12.6
lines.
21
At lirst sight, this observation seems contrary to the
impression that Ovids narrative presentation is more static than the
presentation in the AcnciJ, on the assumption that a dynamic way ol
story-telling relies especially on the use ol the perlect tense.
All in all, these ligures, combined with what we know about the
use ol the present tense in Vergil (linkster 1999, Adema 200, this
volume), may lead to the conclusion that the dillerence in narrative
presentation (dynamic versus more static) may be related to how
both authors make use ol the historic present. my hypothesis on the
basis ol 1able 2 is, therelore, that the AcnciJ and the Vctamcrpncscs
diller signilicantly as to their use ol the (historic) present tense, and
that the observed dillerences in narrative style between both works
is rellected by a dillerent use ol this particular tense. ln the
lollowing section, l will locus on Ovids specilic use ol the present
tense, and on the various narrative techniques in which this tense
plays a role.

! 1nc 0sc cj tnc rcscnt 1cnsc in oviJs metamorphoses

1he historic present is usually considered a stylistic alternative to
the perlect tense. As such, it is the basic tense lor continuous
narrative in the AcnciJ (linkster 1999, Adema, this volume). 8ection
!.1 discusses this particular use ol the present tense in the

21
Although the Vctamcrpncscs sample is relatively dense in main clause
narrative tenses (once every 1.6 lines, against once every 2.! lines in the AcnciJ
sample), this dillerence cannot lully explain the dillerence in lrequency ol the
perlect tense in both poems.
Vctamcrpncscs, which will appear, in lact, to be quite marginal. ln
section !.2 we will locus on the use ol the historic present as an
alternative to the imperlect, which, by contrast, will prove to be a
highly characteristic leature ol the Vctamcrpncscs, and indicative ol
the works alleged lack ol narrative dynamicity. ln both sections,
special attention will be given to the possible motivations lor using
the present tense, which will point to a number ol typically Ovidian
narrative techniques.

!.1 1nc rcscnt as an A|tcrnativc jcr tnc crjcct

ln the AcnciJ, the historic present is the basic tense lor continuous
narrative, that is, lor consecutive bounded events which gradually
advance the relerence time, with the special ellect ol an eyewitness
account which is typical ol a mode in which relerence time and
narrative base are pretended to coincide (linkster 1990, 1999).
22
1his
particular use ol the present tense is, however, quite marginal in my
Vctamcrpncscs-sample, and usually conlined to isolated instances
instead ol longer series. ln the cases involved, the perlect tense
would indeed also have been possible, but the use ol the present
tense always seems to be clearly motivated on account ol its
particular semantic value, which in linkster (1990, ch. 8, 1999) is
described in terms ol simu|tancity witn spcccn timc. 1here are two
groups ol instances in my sample, one in which the events in the
present indicate a narrativc pcak (example [2]), and one in which the
present tense lorms are used lor what l call zccm (example [!]).

[2] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 6.!4!-!48 (lycian larmers)
lorte lacum mediocris aquae prospexi t in imis
uallibus, agrestes illic lruticosa l egebant
uimina cum iuncis gratamque paludibus uluam,
accessi t positoque genu 1itania terram
pressi t, ut hauriret gelidos potura liquores.
rustica turba uetat, dea sic adlata uetantes:
quid prohibetis aquis7

ly chance she saw belore her a lake ol moderate size at the bottom

22
Adema (this volume) prelers to use the metaphor ol directing or directed
perlormance ol the narrator, rather than that ol an eyewitness account.
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu 1ll L8l Ol 1lN8l8 lN OVlu8 V1AVokuo55
ol the valley, the country people were gathering bushy osiers
there and rushes and the sedge that lavours marshes.
1itania approached and knelt down
upon the ground to scoop up the cool water to drink it.
1he rustic mob lorbids her. As they lorbade the goddess spoke so:
why do you keep me lrom the water7

ln the example above, a retrospective narrative discourse mode,
carried by three perlect lorms (prcspcxit, acccssit, prcssit, indicating
successive events) and one imperlect lorm (|ccuant), is temporarily
interrupted by one briel internal moment in the present tense
(rustica turua uctat), which is undeniably the most central and
emotional event in the entire story ol the lycian larmers, with some
lar-reaching consequences: the larmers prevent latona lrom the
logical next step in the narrative sequence, latonas drinking lrom
the pool. Alter this briel moment ol internal presentation the story
continues with another perlect lorm, aJjata.
ln [!], lrom the story ol lermaphroditus and 8almacis, the
present is used lor zooming in, a technique also known lrom the
AcnciJ and lor which Quinn (1968: 94) uses the term tracking
lorward
2!
: the camera starts, so to speak, at a certain distance and
gradually moves closer, spatially anJ temporally, to the events and
location which are to be the centre ol the narrative. we arrive in
lycia, and eventually at the actual scene ol the action in caria, via a
previous history ol inctis |ccis and incta j|umina 1he alternation ol
narrative tenses and, hence, ol narrative bases (lrom retrospective
to story-internal) clearly has a text structural ellect. 1his
structuralizing ellect is enhanced lurther by the use ol the relatively
heavy anaphoric pronoun i||c in a position where, on account ol the
lact that the current discourse topic is continued, we could have
expected a lighter lorm ol anaphoric relerence, or even a zero
anaphora (i.e. ellipsis ol the subject).
24

2!
8ee also uscher (191: 24!l) lor the Vctamcrpncscs.

24
lor the use ol i||c at boundaries in the structure ol the text, see also lolkestein
(2000) and ue oreel (2004). 1he anaphoric pronoun i||c is typically used when the
attention in a text shilts lrom a person or object with topic status to another person
or object present in the scene. when used by Ovid in an environment ol topic
continuity, the anaphoric use ol i||c always seems to coincide with some other type
ol break in the continuity ol the text, as is the case in example [!], where i||c
coincides with a shilt in narrative base, and also e.g. in Vct. 1. !22-!2!, where i||c
occurs at the transition lrom a narrative mode to a report mode (research papers by


[!] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 4.292-298 (lermaphroditus & 8almacis)
is tria cum primum lecit quinquennia, montes
deserui t patrios ldaque altrice relicta
ignotis errare locis, ignota uidere
llumina gaudebat, studio minuente laborem.
i||c etiam lycias urbes lyciaeque propinquos
caras adi t: ui det hic stagnum lucentis ad imum
usque solum lymphae,

As soon as he had lived three times live years, he lelt his lathers
mountains and abandoned lda where hed been brought up
and began to enjoy wandering in unlamiliar places and seeing
unlamiliar rivers with a zeal that made light ol toil.
le even went to the lycian cities and to the lyceans neighbours,
the carians, here he sees a pond ol water
gleaming all the way to the bottom.

!.2 1nc rcscnt as an A|tcrnativc jcr tnc mpcrjcct

much more lrequently, however, than as an alternative lor the
perlect tense in a narrative discourse mode, the present tense in the
Vctamcrpncscs appears to be used in a description mode, lor
indicating states ol allairs which reler to states, ongoing events, and
habitual or repetitive events in other words, lor states ol allairs
that do not contribute to the advancement ol the relerence time ol
the story. As such, the present tense seems to be in competition with
the imperlect more olten than with the perlect.
2
1he use ol the
present tense instead ol the imperlect, is, again, quite
understandable on the basis ol the semantic lunction ol the present.
ln my sample ol ten stories, we can distinguish lour types ol
motivations lor using the present instead ol the imperlect, which are
exemplilied in [4]-[11].
A lirst motivation seems to be a deliberate play with the potential
amuiuity ol the present tense in a narrative text, which can get an

lnez van lgeraat and mark woertman, master seminar on atin 1cxt inuistics
(spring 2006), michiel van der leur, research report (}uly 2006)).

2
1his particular use ol the present can also be lound in the AcnciJ, but on a
much smaller scale (linkster 1999, Adema, personal communication). According to
Oldsj (2001, 5 9.1), in latin historiography the historic present does not lunction as
an alternative lor the imperlect at all.
actual, historic, or universalJeternal reading. 1his ambiguity can be
illustrated by example [4] below, which continues the passage cited
under [!]:

[4] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 4.29-!04 (lermaphroditus and 8almacis)
ui det hic stagnum lucentis ad imum
usque solum lymphae, non illic canna palustris
nec steriles uluae nec acuta cuspide iunci,
perspicuus liquor est, stagni tamen ultima uiuo
caespite ci nguntur semperque uirentibus herbis.
nympha col i t, sed nec uenatibus apta nec arcus
llectere quae soleat nec quae contendere cursu,
solaque naiadum celeri non nota uianae.

lere he sees a pond ol water
gleaming all the way to the bottom. 1here is
26
no marsh reed there,
nor barren sedge, nor rushes with pointed tips:
the water is clear, but the edge ol the pond is surrounded
by a lresh lawn, with grass that was always green.
A nymph liues there, not one that is good at hunting or used
to bending a bow or competing in a chase,
and the only one ol the Naiads unknown to swilt uiana.

ln the lirst line ol example [4] we are dealing, as we have seen, with
the discourse mode Narrative, in which the present tense lorm viJct
requires a historic interpretation: lermaphroditus has reached
caria, where he discovers a pond (aJit, uiJct, historic presents). A
description ol the pond lollows, ending in the observation that it is
the residence ol a nymph (nympna cc|it, !02), who, in turn, now
becomes the object ol a description hersell (not cited here). ly
means ol the (continued) use ol the present tense, the narrator
seems to deliberately leave it undecided whether the present tense
in the description would call lor a specilic and historic reading, or
lor an eternal reading (i.e. as continuing outside the borders ol the
specilic story world relerred to here and still valid at the narrators
time).
2
Ovid seems to preler this type ol ambiguity over the
transparancy ol the imperlect, which, ol course, can only be given a
historic interpretation.

26
lill translates: 1here was no marsh reed there. le also uses past tenses lor all
the other verbs in this passage.

2
lerhaps i||ic in l. 298 may be seen as an explicit indication lor the latter
interpretation, more research on deictic words is needed here.
A comparable use ol the ambiguity ol the present tense can be
seen in example []. 1he passage, taken lrom the story ol mercury,
lerse and Aglauros in book 2, illustrates a lrequent Ovidian
technique which l call nint cj univcrsa|ity. lt concerns the gradual and
almost unnoticed lading lrom the specilic and time-bound to the
general (perhaps even generic) and timeless.

[] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 2.!-8! (mercury, lerse and Aglauros)
utque deam uidit lormaque armisque decoram, NAk
i ngemui t uultumque una ac suspiria duxi t.
pallor in ore sedet, macies in corpore toto, ul8
nusquam recta acies, l i uent rubigine dentes,
pectora lelle ui rent, lingua est sullusa ueneno.
risus abest, nisi quem uisi mouere dolores,
nec lrui tur somno, uigilacibus excita curis,
sed ui det ingratos i ntabesci tque uidendo
successus hominum carpi tque et carpi tur una
suppliciumque suum est. quamuis tamen oderat illam,
talibus adlata est breuiter 1ritonia dictis: NAk

And, when she saw the goddess resplendent in beauty and in arms,
she groaned and screwed up her expression in a deep sigh.
ler lace has a settled pallor, she is gaunt in all her body,
her gaze is never straight, her teeth are loul with decay,
her breasts are green with bile and her tongue is drenched in poison.
8he has no smile, except one brought by the sight ol others sorrows,
and she never enjoys sleep, roused as she is by wakelul cares,
but she looks at mens unwelcome success
and wastes away as she looks, gnawing and gnawed together,
she is her own punishment. lut, however much she hated her,
1ritonia still spoke brielly to her with words like this:

ln the preceding context, the narrator has told us how minerva,
plotting revenge on Aglauros, arrived at the house ol personilied
envy, the highly unattractive lnvidia. 1he lirst lines ol the lragment
cited here (!-4), show us lnvidias reaction on the arrival ol the
goddess, alter which there is a description ol lnvidia in the lorm ol a
series ol states in the present tense. As a result ol the semantic
coherence evoked by the succession ol the words uu|tum and crc (4
and ), the description seems to start out as merely valid within
the time lrame ol the specilic story world relerred to: when the
description starts, time is suspended and scJct seems to be
anaphorically related to the relerence time established in the

previous text by Juxit. lut gradually, starting lrom nusuam in line
6, the present tense lorms appear to break out ol the specilic time
lrame ol the story, and acquire a universal and generic validity. 1his
universal description is rounded oll by the paradox carpituc ct
carpitur, lrom which we return to the actual story world.
28

ln a text in which metamorphoses play such a prominent role and
in which the story world described in lact pertains to a dimension
out ol time
29
, this gradual lading lrom specilic to generalJgeneric,
and lrom time-bound to timeless, does not come as a surprise and
linds a suitable conveyance in the use ol present tense, which, in
contrast to the imperlect, is always able to evoke and underline this
ambiguity. 1his is not to say that we do not come across longer
descriptions in the imperlect tense in the Vctamcrpncscs, as is
illustrated by example [6], which contains a comparable description
ol lames, hunger personilied. lt is my impression, however, that the
use ol the imperlect in the description mode is rare in the
Vctamcrpncscs.
!0

[6] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 8.99-809 (lrysichthon)
quaesitamque lamem lapidoso ui di t in agro NAk
unguibus et raras uellentem dentibus herbas.
hirtus erat crinis, caua lumina, pallor in ore, ul8
labra incana situ, scabrae rubigine lauces,
dura cutis, per quam spectari uiscera possent,
ossa sub incuruis exstabant arida lumbis,
uentris erat pro uentre locus, pendere putares
pectus et a spinae tantummodo crate teneri.
auxerat articulos macies genuumque tumebat

28
lor the role ol paradoxes and sententiae in the Vctamcrpncscs, cl. uscher
(191: 26) and 8olodow (1988: 46-2), see also below, in the discussion ol example
[].

29
cl. 8olodow (1988: 122): All the stories, and all their parts almost, might be
taking place in a single moment, an eternal present.

!0
As a matter ol lact, the passage in [6] seems to be one ol the very lew examples
in the Vctamcrpncscs in which a description mode is characterized by the imperlect
tense. 8uzana kensburg-uapcevska (research paper, master seminar on atin 1cxt
inuistics (spring 2006)) lound no close parallels in the Vctamcrpncscs. 1he use ol
the imperlect (instead ol the present) in this particular instance may have been
triggered by the embedded localization (we see lames through the eyes ol the
nymph, cl. uiJit in line 99 and 809), but obviously more research is needed here. cl.
also 8mith (2002: 1): 1he imperlective viewpoint is known to be hospitable to
particular perspectives. 1he imperlect locuses on an internal interval ol a situation
and is traditionally said to involve an internal perspective (comrie 196).
orbis et inmodico prodi bant tubere tali.
hanc procul ut uidit.... NAk

8earching lor lunger, she saw her in a stony lield
tearing at the sparse vegetation with her lingernails and teeth.
ler hair was shaggy, she had hollow eyes, a pallid lace,
lips white lrom disuse, throat raw and blighted,
and hard skin through which her bowels could be seen,
shrivelled bones stood out under her hollow loins,
her belly was a space lor a belly, you would think her breasts
were hanging oll and only just held up by the rib cage on her spine,
her thinness had enlarged her joints, her knee joints
were bulging and her ankles stood out immensely swollen.
when she saw her lrom alar

A third motivation lor using the present instead ol the imperlect has
to do with the technique ol zccm, a phenomenon we have
encountered already, in a slightly dillerent lorm, in the context ol
the narrative discourse mode (see example [!] above). lxamples []
and [8] below serve as an illustration. loth involve an extended
passage in the description mode, which as a wnc|c has a preparative
lunction with regard to a central narrative incident that lollows
later on (indicated in the examples by NAk). ln both descriptive
passages the imperlect tense is, at a certain point, replaced by the
present, as il to announce that the text is gradually approaching a
major locus ol interest (i.e. the narrative incident that is to lollow
the description). Another way ol saying this, is that the retrospective
base lrom which the description is presented at lirst, is changed into
a story-internal base lor a certain reason.
1he uescription passage in [] is a good example ol Ovids static
and pictorial narrative style. 1he passage is taken lrom the
beginning ol the story ol mercury, lerse and Aglauros, in which the
poet describes how mercury lalls in love with the beautilul lerse.
1he passage quoted is the introduction to a second part ol the story,
in which we will be conlronted with the ruses ol lerses jealous
sister Aglauros, and which will eventually lead to the description ol
lnvidia cited in example [] above.

[] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 2.08-26 (mercury, lerse and Aglauros)
linc se sustul erat paribus caduciler alis, ul8
munychiosque uolans agros gratamque mineruae
despectabat humum cultique arbusta lycei.
illa lorte die castae de more puellae
ul8cOLk8l mOul8 ANu 1ll L8l Ol 1lN8l8 lN OVlu8 V1AVokuo55 8!
uertice supposito lestas in lallados arces
pura coronatis portabant sacra canistris.
inde reuertentes deus aspi ci t ales iterque 7ooV
non agi t in rectum sed in orbem curuat eundem
ut uolucris uisis rapidissima miluus extis, 5V
dum timet et densi circumstant sacra ministri,
llectitur in gyrum nec longius audet abire
spemque suam motis auidus circumuolat alis,
sic super Actaeas agilis cyllenius arces
i ncl i nat cursus et easdem ci rci nat auras.
quanto splendidior quam cetera sidera lulget 5V
luciler et quanto quam luciler aurea lhoebe,
tanto uirginibus praestantior omnibus lerse
i bat eratque decus pompae comitumque suarum.
obsti pui t lorma loue natus... NAk

1he stallbearer took himsell up away lrom here on his balanced wings
and, as he llew, looked down upon the mun. lields and minervas
lavourite earth and the woods ol the cultured lyceum.
lt happened on that day that chaste girls in accordance with the
custom,were carrying on top ol their heads pure and sacred objects
in garlanded baskets to the citadel ol lallas on the lestival.
1he winged god notices them as they are coming back lrom there and
does not take a straight path but veers round into the same arc.
}ust as the kite, swiltest ol birds when it has seen entrails,
wheels round in a circle while it is alraid and the priests
stand crowding around the sacrilice, and it dares not go too lar away
but, with llapping wings, llies eagerly around what it is hoping lor,
even so the eager cyllenian diverts his course above
the Actaean citadels and circles through the same air.
}ust as luciler shines more brightly than the other
stars, and just as lhoebe outshines luciler,
even so was lerse outstanding over all the maidens
as she went and was the glory ol the procession and her companions.
}oves son was dumblounded by her beauty...

ln the above example we lirst see mercury, llying high in the air and
looking down on the Athenian earth, where at the same time a group
ol girls, among whom the beautilul lerse, is heading to the temple
ol lallas. mercury then narrows his view and keeps circling above
the procession ol the girls. 1he use ol the present tense (aJspicit, ait,
curuat) is quite explainable here, considering that there is a
transition lrom visual distance to visual proximity.
!1
with the
exception ol the linal verse ol the lragment, the entire passage 08-
2 may be regarded as a uescription: the states ol allairs relerred to
are all unbounded events, which are presented as continuing or in
progress. 1his means that they do not, by themselves, establish a
shilt lorward in the relerence time ol the story. lt is in this sense
that the episode can indeed be said to be lacking in narrative
dynamism. As is common in the description mode, the textual
progression is mainly ol a spatial nature: the text does not so much
advance by a gradual shilt ol the storys relerence time, as by
shilting the attention, within one and the same scene and one and
the same relerence time, alternately lrom mercury high in the air, to
Athens and the procession ol Athenian girls below.
lt is signilicant how, shortly belore zooming in (see the indication
7ooV in line 14), the narrator skilllully manages to imply a shilt in
relerence time (the only one in the entire passage) without having to
switch to a narrative discourse mode: by means ol the participle
rcucrtcntcs it is implied (rather than stated), that the inherently telic
state ol allairs sacra pcrtarc in arccs, which, by virtue ol the imperlect
tense, was presented as being in progress, has indeed reached
completion and is now lollowed by a next event on the time line. 1he
narrative discourse mode is apparently overruled here by the
description mode: the narrator adroitly jumps lrom picture to
picture, while keeping the dynamic narrative lramework to a
minimum.
Alter this subtle, non-dynamic way ol shilting the relerence time,
the description is continued, this time by means ol present tense
lorms which suggest a gradual zooming in or locusing, in the sense
ol working up to a narrative incident that is to lollow. lt is possible
to consider aspicit here as a briel narrative moment in an otherwise
descriptive environment, as lills translation seems to imply. 1his is,
however, not strictly necessary: in addition to the momentaneous
meaning to catch sight ol, aspiccrc can also mean gaze upon or to
examine with the eyes, states ol allairs that in essence can be

!1
7ooming in (lrom general to specilic, lrom the outside to the inside, lrom
broad to narrow, etc.) is a common narrative technique in the Vctamcrpncscs (cl.
uscher 191), as well as in the AcnciJ (cl. Quinn 1968).
presented as being in progress, as is the case in, lor instance, line 48
ol this story (not cited here).
!2

1he impression ol a description in separate images, instead ol the
narration ol a series ol bounded events, is enhanced lurther by the
insertion ol two similes, indicated in example [] by the abbreviation
8lm. ln my sample (cl. also example [1] above and [11] below), similes
appear to be a recurrent leature ol the discourse mode description,
and have the ellect ol a picture within a picture. like the use ol
paradoxes and sententiae, and the use ol the present tense, they can
be seen as a means to release the descriptions lrom their specilic and
time-bound lramework, and to raise them to a general and timeless
plane.
!!

lxample [8] ollers a comparable instance ol a description mode in
which, lor reasons ol zoom, the imperlect tense is substituted, alter
several lines, by the present tense.
!4
1he structural boundary
involved here is not only signalled by a change in tense (pointing to
a change in the narrators base), but also by the signilicant use ol the
relatively strong anaphoric pronoun i||i in line 48, in a case ol
continuity ol the discourse topic (see also example [!] above, and
note 24).

[8] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 8.!2-4 (8cylla & minos)
cum uero laciem dempto nudauerat aere ul8
purpureusque albi stratis insignia pictis
terga premebat equi spumantiaque ora regebat,
uix sua, uix sanae uirgo Niseia compos
mentis erat: lelix iaculum quod tangeret ille,
quaeque manu premeret lelicia lrena uocabat.
impetus est i||i, liceat modo, lerre per agmen 7ooV
uirgineos hostile gradus, est impetus illi
turribus e summis in cnosia mittere corpus
castra uel aeratas hosti recludere portas,
uel si quid minos aliud uelit.
utque sedebat NAk

!2
Olu sv aspicic, 2. cl. liv. 44.4.4 situm uruis unJiuc aspicicns.

!!
Note that the two similes in example [] both hint at a next phase ol zooming
in, which lollows immediately alterwards: alter zooming in lrom Athens on the
procession ol the girls (change lrom imperlect to present), the similes prepare us
lor the linal stage ol locusing: the singling out ol one specilic girl, lerse.

!4
Note that impctus cst in line !8 is not a bounded event but a state, as is
indicated by the addition |iccat mcJc.
candida uictaei spectans tentoria regis,
laeter, ai t doleamne geri lacrimabile bellum,
in dubio est...

lut when he had removed his bronze helmet and bared his lace,
and in his purple was pressing down upon the back ol his white horse,
glorious (.), and was controlling its loaming mouth,
scarcely her own sell, scarcely possessed ol her right mind was the
Nisean maiden: she called his javelin lucky because it was touched by
him, and his reins lucky because they were pressed into his hand.
lt is her impulse, il only it were allowed, to take her maidens
steps through the enemy line, it is her impulse
to throw her body lrom the top ol the towers into the cnossian
camp, or to open the bronze gates to the enemy,
or anything else that minos might wish.
And as she sat down
and gazed upon the gleaming tents ol the uictaean king,
l am in doubt, she said, whether to rejoice or grieve that this
lamentable war is being waged,

A linal motivation lor the use ol the historic present instead ol the
imperlect l subsume under the category jramcntaticn. ly this term l
reler to series ol historic presents in the description mode which
tcctncr lill in the specilic details ol one, more general, bounded
eventJrelerence time in the narrative discourse mode. ln
narratological terms, we might speak ol summaries and scenes in
such instances. we already came across one instance ol
lragmentation in example [1], where the lragmented bounded event
the lalling on the ground ol lhilomelas tongue remained,
however, implicit. ln [9] below there is an explicit bounded event,
Jcriuit (relerring to Niobes petrilication), which is spelled out in a
number ol sub-events and states lilling in the details. As is usual in
the description mode, the ongoing events and states involved are
related to one another in a spatial rather than in a temporal way:

[9] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 6.!0!-!12 (Niobe)
deri gui tque malis. NAk

nullos mouet aura capillos, ul8
in uultu color est sine sanguine, lumina maestis
stant inmota genis, nihil est in imagine uiuum.
ipsa quoque interius cum duro lingua palato
congel at, et uenae desi stunt posse moueri,
nec llecti ceruix nec bracchia reddere motus
nec pes ire potest, intra quoque uiscera saxum est.
ll et tamen et ualidi circumdata turbine uenti

in patriam rapta est: ibi lixa cacumine montis kll
l i qui tur, et lacrimas etiam nunc marmora manant.

And she grew rigid lrom her woes.

1he breeze moves not a hair,
the colour in her lace is bloodless, her eyes stand unmoving
in their sad sockets, there is nothing living in her appearence.
lven her tongue itsell lreezes inside her together with her hardened
palate, and her veins lose the ability to be moved,
her neck can not be bent nor her arms make movements
nor her loot go , inside her bowels too it is stone.
And yet she weeps and, wrapped in a mighty whirlwind,

was snatched oll to her native land, there lixed to a mountain peak
she melts away and even now as marble llows with tears.

1he coherence and advancement ol the descriptive passage in
example [9] is clearly enhanced by the iconic nature ol the
description, which is in compliance with the prescripts ol ancient
rhetoric: the camera scans the petrilied Niobe lrom head to leet and
lrom the outside to the inside (uisccra, l. !09), quite comparable to
the way in which lunger is described in the story ol lrysichthon
(see example [6] above). 1he choice lor the present tense instead ol
the imperlect seems to be motivated in a negative as well as in a
positive way. Negatively, because it is not quite leasible that alter
the mentioning ol a bounded event (Jcriuit), this state ol allairs will
be specilied lurther by a series ol progressives and states in the
imperlect tense, considering that series ol imperlects are commonly
used lor wcrkin up to a particular bounded event (narrative
technique ol building up narrative tension), rather than
retrospectively ji||in in its details. At the same time, the choice ol
the present tense seems to be motivated positively, as in this way the
description can be promoted lrom its initial specilic and time-
bound narrative lrame to a more general and timeless lrame.
1hus, what we see in example [9], and also in [10] and [11] below,
is a narrator who lreezes the ongoing story at a certain relerence
time by exchanging the narrative discourse mode lor a description
mode or, stated otherwise, by lragmenting the perlect tense
event in relerence time into a number ol unbounded sub-events and
states in the present. As the relerence time in this typically Ovidian
technique does not proceed with these sub-events, and the sub-
events themselves do not necessarily maintain a consecutive
relationship, these series ol presents contribute, in a certain sense,
to the impression ol a static way ol story-telling: although the
individual states ol allairs may display a certain degree ol internal
dynamism, there is no real progress ol the relerence time ol the
story as a whole.
ln [10] the relerence time constituted by the perlect tense lorm
arsit (the ignition ol the wooden stick that Althaea has thrown into
the lire) is lilled in by a number ol present tense events describing
the miraculous contemporaneous ellects ol this event on meleager,
who is at a dillerent location. As most ol the events seem to be
presented here as ongoing or repeated, there is only a weak sense ol
temporal succession and advancement ol relerence time.
!
As such,
the passage can be considered as belonging to the description mode.
with the perlect lorms cst cxstinctus and auiit we return to the
narrative discourse mode and to the next relerence time.

[10] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 8.14-2 (Althaea & meleager)
(...)
stipes, et inuitis correptus ab ignibus arsi t. NAk

lnscius atque absens llamma meleagros ab illa ul8
uri tur et caecis torreri uiscera senti t
ignibus ac magnos superat uirtute dolores.
quod tamen ignauo cadat et sine sanguine leto,
maeret et Ancaei lelicia uulnera di ci t
grandaeuumque patrem lratresque piasque sorores
cum gemitu sociamque tori uocat ore supremo,
lorsitan et matrem. crescunt ignisque dolorque
l anguescuntque iterum,

simul est exsti nctus uterque, NAk
inque leues abi i t paulatim spiritus auras
paulatim cana prunam uelante lauilla.

!
1he position ol the iterative sentence crcscunt inisuc Jc|cruc |anucscuntuc
itcrum alter the words uccat crc suprcmc in the preceding line, can be taken as an
argument lor an iterative interpretation ol uccat crc suprcmc as well, and as
contributing to the weak sense ol temporal succession in the entire passage 1-2!.
1he stick (...), seized by unwilling lires, caught alight.

1hough unaware and absent, meleager is burnt by that
llame and leels his llesh scorched by unseen
lires, but he overcomes the great pains with his courage.
And yet that he is lalling to an ignoble death without bloodshed
is grievous to him, and he calls Ancaeus wounds happy
and, with a groan, he summons his aged lather, his brothers, his pious
sisters and, with his last words, the companion ol his marriage bed,
perhaps his mother too. 1he lire and pain grow
and subside again,

both were extinguished together,
and his spirit slowly went away into the light air
as a white ash slowly clothed the embers.

A linal, very good example ol lragmentation comes lrom the story ol
lermaphroditus and 8almacis:

[11] Ovid Vctamcrpncscs 4.!46-! (lermaphroditus & 8almacis)
tum uero pl acui t, nudaeque cupidine lormae
8almacis exarsi t, NAk

ll agrant quoque lumina nymphae, ul8 1
non aliter quam cum puro nitidissimus orbe
opposita speculi releritur imagine lhoebus,
uixque moram pati tur uix iam sua gaudia di llert,
iam cupi t amplecti, iam se male conti net amens.
i||c cauis uelox adplauso corpore palmis ul8 2
desi l i t in latices alternaque bracchia ducens
in liquidis transl ucet aquis, ut eburnea si quis
signa tegat claro uel candida lilia uitro.

1hen indeed he gave pleasure and 8almacis burnt with desire
lor his naked beauty:

and the nymphs eyes are allame too
just as when lhoebus orb, clear and at its brightest,
is rellected in the image ol a mirror lacing it.
8he can scarcely bear delay, scarcely put oll her pleasure,
now she wants to embrace him, now she can in her madness
hardly contain hersell.

le swiltly jumps down in the waters, slapping his body
with hollowed palms and, plying his arms in turn,
he gleams through the transparent waters just like an ivory
statue or white lilies il someone encases them in clear glass.
ln this example, the technique ol lragmentation seems to be applied
twice. lirst, the perlect lorm cxarsit (belonging to the narrative
discourse mode) is visually lilled in with descriptive details ol
8almacis emotional state ol mind (line !4b-!1). Alter this, the poet
continues by giving the details ol lermaphroditus
contemporaneous taking pleasure in the water. ln this second
description, introduced by the topic shilt marker i||c (see above), l
take Jcsi|it as an unbounded, iterative event, although the
alternative interpretation (bounded event which advances relerence
time) is, ol course, not excluded here. Note that in the next verse
trans|ucct describes the visual ellect ol an action that itsell is only
relerred to in an embedded participle construction (uraccnia Juccns):
another technique that contributes to a static and pictorial way ol
storytelling. Note also that the two descriptions are more or less
equal in length, and that both contain a simile. 1he length ol the
descriptions, as compared to their unlragmented narrative
counterpart in line !46-a, as well as the emphatic expressions uix
uix and iam iam iam in the lirst description, support the
impression that the vignettes lorm the actual locus ol the poets
attention.

4 ccnc|usicn

1he general aim ol this contribution was to show how an analysis ol
an authors manipulation ol the linguistic resources (in this case,
especially those ol tense marking) can enhance our understanding ol
a literary latin text, and to give an indication ol how such an
analysis can serve as an instrument lor stylistic comparison between
dillerent texts within the same genre (in this case, Ovids
Vctamcrpncscs as compared to Vergils AcnciJ). more specilically, the
paper has attempted to illustrate how linguistics may contribute to
operationalizing such notoriously dillicult concepts as narrative
style and text type. ly linking the literary notion ol narrative
dynamism to the linguistically delined concept ol discourse mode (in
which tense and semantic type ol state ol allairs play an essential
role), l have tried, lor a selection ol stories in the Vctamcrpncscs, to
demonstrate how Ovids narrative style can indeed be regarded as
pictorial and static an analysis which, at the same time, revealed
some ol the major principles ol textual coherence and textual
structure in the stories ol the Vctamcrpncscs.
lt appears that Ovid tells his stories prelerably in the lorm ol
series ol separate pictures, an observation that is in accordance with
8olodows literary analysis ol the Aeneas-story in books 1! and 14 ol
the Vctamcrpncscs.
!6
1hese series ol snapshots are held together by
a rather broadly sketched and economical narrative lramework,
which is conveyed mainly by perlect tense lorms in a retrospective
narrative mode, and by scattered keport. longer series ol perlect
tense verb lorms are rare and usually conlined to passages with the
lunction ol previous history.
!
1he snapshots, which lorm the main
body ol the stories, usually display a relatively low degree ol
temporal dynamics (in the sense ol a steady succession ol bounded
events), as is indicated especially by the type ol states ol allairs they
contain: states, progressives, and so-called general statives. 1extual
advancement in these vignettes is spatial rather than temporal, and
il temporal advancement is at all present, this has to be inlerred
more olten than that it is indicated explicitly (see e.g. the discussion
on example [] above). 1he prevalent discourse mode in the
vignettes is uescription rather than Narrative.
ln the discourse mode uescription, so highly characteristic ol
Ovids style in the Vctamcrpncscs, we do come across, as expected,
the imperlect tense. 8ignilicant, however, is the much more lrequent
use ol the present tense, which in the Vctamcrpncscs, in contrast to
the AcnciJ, is usually not a narrative tense in the strict sense ol the
word, but rather a description tense. 1his particular use ol the

!6
8olodow (1988, chapter 4, see especially p. 124).

!
lerlect tense lorms in main clauses tend to be isolated, or to occur in short
series ol two or three perlect lorms. 1hey usually involve movements in time and
space in between individual scenes. longer series ol perlects in the sample are
lound in 4.-9 (lyramus and 1hisbe), 6.424-4!8 (1hereus, lrocne & lhilomela),
8.611-6!4 (lhilemon and laucis), 8.!8-6 (lrysichthon). ln all these cases, we are
dealing with previous history, in which a deceleration ol the tempo would be out ol
place. ln the story ol lermaphroditus and 8almacis, as well as in the story ol Althaea
and meleager, series ol perlects are lacking altogether. longer series ol perlect
lorms outside previous history are 6.621-6!6 (the murdering ol lthys, in the story ol
lrocne and lhilomela), and 4.100-106 (lrom the story ol lyramus and 1hisbe, which
in other respects also appears to be the most dynamic story ol the sample). uata:
research paper miriam Vallinga, master seminar on atin 1cxt inuistics (spring
2006).
historic present instead ol the imperlect tense does occur in the
AcnciJ, but less pervasively
!8
, while according to Oldsj (2001) this
use is altogether lacking in koman historiography. 1here always
seems to be a positive motivation lor the use ol the present (instead
ol the imperlect) in these descriptive passages, which in all cases can
be related to the specilic semantic value ol the present (i.e.
simultaneity with speakers time). 1hese motivations can be
described in terms ol lour, typically Ovidean, narrative techniques:
deliberate ambiguity between a historic and an actualJeternal
reading, hint ol universality, zoom, and lragmentation.
All in all, we can say that the dillerence between Ovid and Vergil
in narrative style and treatment ol the epic genre comes to the lore
most explicitly in the dillerent ways in which they make use ol the
historic present: Vergil lor continuous, connected action and
movement through (historical) time, Ovid lor the arrested moment,
the unchanging picture
!9
, which always tends to break loose lrom
the specilic and timebound narrative lrame by which it is enclosed.

!8
Adema, personal communication.

!9
8olodow (1988: 12).

clAl1lk 8lX

8lN8l ANu 8lN1lNcl cOmlllXl1Y
8lN1lNcl 81kLc1Lkl, 8lN1lNcl cONNlc1lON, ANu 1lN8l-
A8llc1 A8 lNulcA1Ok8 Ol NAkkA1lVl mOul lN 1lLcYulul8
u51ok5
1

kutger }. Allan

1 ntrcJucticn: 1wc 5ty|cs

1hucydides unique literary style is particularly known lor its
striking complexity, which olten verges on obscurity. lowever,
1hucydides style is not homogenous in this respect. ln his narrative
he lrequently employs a style that is more simple and
straightlorward. 8uch passages, in turn, are characterized by chains
ol relatively short, paratactic clauses which are connected by iei. ln
the extended passage lrom 1hucydides book 6 (example [1]), the
stretches ol text that reveal a simple, paratactic style are printed in
bold-lace.
2

[1] 1hucydides 6.100-102

laratacti c styl e, listoric lresent, lmperlect, Aorist, lerlect,
lmmediate mode

6.100
lll8Oul l [ln a surprise attack, the Athenians take the 8yracusan counter
wall and destroy it.]
6.100.1 1. c nciq c toi 5ueiooioi eiouvtu coici c_civ

1
l would like to thank 8uzanne Adema, oerard loter and caroline lroon lor
their valuable comments on an earlier version ol this paper.

2
ln the passage cited the sentences are numbered (1) to (!6). l deline scntcncc
here as a syntactic unit consisting ol a single main clause with a linite verb, which
may be combined with one or more linite subordinate clauses, participial clauses or
inlinitives. 1he terms immcJiatc and Jisp|accJ mcJc, ccmp|icaticn, cak and kcsc|uticn
will be explained at a later point.
94 kL1olk }. AllAN
cOmlllcA1lON
uisplaced mode

oe tc coteuuOq iei (iooqOq tou unotci_ioeto,
iei oi AOqveioi eutou oui qiOov iuiuoovtc,
ooucvoi q oioi i_e yiyvocvoi ov
e_uvtei, iei de tqv ieO euto ncitci_ioiv
cnciyocvoi, oi cv 5ueiooioi uiqv iev iete-
iinovtc uieie tou oiiooqeto evc_uqoev c
tqv noiiv,
2. oi c AOqveioi tou tc o_ctou eutuv, o c tqv
noiiv unovoqov noto0 eto qycvoi qoev,
icOciev,
!. iei tqqoevtc tou tc diiou 5ueiooiou iete
oiqve vte cv coqi iei tive ie c tqv noiiv
enoic_uqiote ie tou cv t( oteuueti eciu
uieooovte, tieiooiou cv ouv eutuv ioyee
iei tuv iiu v tive ciicitou u niiocvou
noute(ev Ociv o( c(eniveiu no to uno-
tci_ioe,
4. q diiq otetie i_e, q c v cte to0 c tcou
otetqyou no tqv noiiv, ci cnioqOoicv, c_uouv, q
c cte tou ctcou no to oteuue to nee tqv
nuiie.
6.100.2
llAl
lmmediate mode
. iei nooeio vtc oi tieio oioi ei ou oi
to oteu ue

6.100.2-!
kl8OlL1lON
lmmediate mode

6. iei oi u ieic eu to c iiino vtc
ietc uyov c to notci _ioe to nci to v
1ccvi tqv.
. iei eu toi (uvcoc ncoov oi iu iovtc,
8. iei c vto ycvo cvoi i c (ciou oOqoev
ne iiv no tuv 5ueiooi uv,
9. iei tuv eyci uv tivc eu to Oi iei tuv
AOqvei uv ou noiioi icOe qoev.
10. iei c neve_uq oeoe q ne oe otetie tq v
tc u notci _ioiv ieOciiov
11. iei to oteu ue e vc oneoev
12. iei ico qoev to oteuo ne
c euto
1!. iei toneiov cotqoev.
6.101
lll8Oul ll [1he second 8yracusan counter-wall is captured by the
Athenians. 1he 8yracusans are deleated]
8lN8l ANu 8lN1lNcl cOmlllXl1Y 9
6.101.1-!
cOmlllcA1lON
uisplaced mode

14. tp uotcei eno tou iuiiou ctci_iov oi
AOqveioi tov iqvov tov unc tou iou, o tuv
Tninoiuv teutp no tov cyev iicve o , iei pnc
eutoi e_utetov cyiyvcto ieteeoi ie tou oeiou
iei tou iou c tov iic ve to ncitci_ioe.
6.101.2
1. iei oi 5ueiooioi cv tout( c(ciOovtc iei eutoi
encoteuouv eOi e(ecvoi eno tq noicu ie
coou tou iou,
16. iei teov de neuuooov, nu q oiov tc p
toi AOqveioi c_i tq Oeieooq enotci_ioei.
6.101.!
1. oi , cnciq to no tov iqvov eutoi
c(ciyeoto, cni_ciouoiv eOi t( tuv 5ueiooiuv
oteuueti iei te(, te cv veu icicuoevtc
ncinicuoei ci tq Oeou c tov cyev iicve tov
tuv 5ueiooiuv,
18. euto c nci Oov ieteevtc eno tuv Tni-
noiuv c to oeiov iei ie tou iou, p nqiuc qv
iei otciutetov, Oue iei (uie nietce cniOcvtc
iei cn eutuv ieeioevtc,
6.101.!
llAl
lmmediate mode
eiouoiv de ( to tc oteuue niqv oiiyou iei tqv
teov,

6.101.4
kl8OlL1lON
lmmediate mode
19. iei otcov iei to u noiciOc v ciiov.
20. iei e _q c yc vcto,
21. iei c v eu tp c vi iuv oi AOqveioi.
22. lei tu v 5ueiooi uv oi c v to c(io v
ic e c_ovtc no tq v no iiv ccuyov, oi
c ni t( cu uvu ( nee tov noteov.
6.101.4-
lpisode lll [1he 8yracusans launch a counter attack]
6.101.4-
cOmlllcA1lON
uisplaced mode
2!. ie eutou ouiocvoi enoiipoeoOei tq
ieeocu oi tuv AOqveiuv tieiooioi ioyec
o( qnciyovto no tqv ycuev.
2. cioevtc c oi 5ueiooioi
24. (qoev ye iei tuv inncuv eutoi oi noiio
cvteuOe)
6.101.
llAl
lmmediate mode
2 oooc _uouoi toi tieiooioi toutoi,
26. iei tc nouoi tc eu to
2. iei c oe iiouoiv c to c(iov ic e tuv
AOqveiuv
96 kL1olk }. AllAN
6.101.
kl8OlL1lON
lmmediate mode
28. iei nooncoo vtuv eu tuv (uvcoq Oq
iei q nutq uiq to0 icu
6.101.6
lpisode lV [lamachus is killed]
6.101.6
cOmlllcA1lON
uisplaced mode

29. uv c o Aee_o necoqOci eno tou cuuvuou
tou ceutuv cte to(otuv tc ou noiiu v iei tou
Ayciou neeieu v,
!0. iei cniiee teov tive iei ovuOci ct
oiiyuv tuv (uviee vtuv
6.101.6
llAl
lmmediate mode
enoOvpoici euto tc iei ncvtc ( E( tuv ct eutou.
!1. iei tou tou c v oi 5ueio oioi cu Ou
iete t_o Oe vouoiv e ne oevtc nc ev
tou noteou c to e oeic,
6.101.6
kl8OlL1lON
uisplaced mode
!2. eutoi c cniovto qq iei tou diiou otetcu eto
tuv AOqveiuv e nc_uouv.

6.102
lll8Oul V [1he 8yracusans attack the Athenians on the plain and at the
circle lort on lpipolae. Nicias saves the circle]
6.102.1
cOmlllcA1lON
uisplaced mode
!!. c v tout( c oi no tqv noiiv eutuv to nutov
ieteuyovtc u cuuv teute yiyvocve, eutoi tc
neiiv eno tq no icu eveOeoqoevtc e vtcte(evto
no tou iete oe AOqveiou,
6.102.1-2
llAl
lmmediate mode
!4. iei c o ti etuv nc nouoiv c ni tov
iu iiov tov c ni tei cni noiei, q you cvoi
c qov ei (ociv.
!. ie to cv cie nicOov notci _ioe
etuv ei o0oi
6.102.2
kl8OlL1lON
lmmediate mode
!6. ie icnoOqoev

2 Narrativc VcJc

1he question l would like to address in this paper is how we should
explain this striking alternation ol narrative styles. l will argue that
these alternations ol narrative style can be explained by means ol
the concept ol narrativc mcJc. lut belore l turn to the issue ol
narrative mode, let us take a closer look at some linguistic properties
ol the passage lrom book 6.
1able 1: linguistic properties ol 1h. 6.100-102

compl ex
styl e
(uisplaced
mode)
8i mpl e
styl e
(lmmediate
mode)
lredicates per 8entence
!
4. 4 (n=9) 1.2 (n=!)
linite Verbs in main
clause per 8entence
4

1.00 (1!) 1.00 (2!)
larticiples per 8entence 2. 2! (29) 0.4! (10)
lnlinitives per 8entence 0. !8 () 0.04 (1)
8entence
compl exi ty
linite Verbs in
8ubordinate clauses per
8entence
0. 92 (12) 0.04 (1)
8entences 100/ (16) 100/ (20)
iei !1/ () 100/ (20)
(cv) c 6!/ (10) 0/ (0)
connecti ve
larti cl es
y 6/ (1) 0/ (0)
linite Verbs 100/ (21) 100/ (22)
listoric lresent / (1) 41/ (9)
lmperlect 2/ (11) 9/ (2)
Aorist !!/ () 0/ (11)
1ense-
Aspect
lluperlect 10/ (2) 0/ (0)

1able 1 shows that in the passages with a complex style the number
ol predicates which roughly equals the number ol clauses per
sentence is about three times as high as in the simple style,
namely 4.4 versus 1.2 predicates per sentence. ln the complex
style, sentences contain signilicantly more participles, more
inlinitives, and more subordinated clauses.

!
1he total number ol predicates is the sum ol the participles, inlinitives and
linite verbs (in main and subordinate clauses). Note that, because all numbers are
rounded oll, the totals (4.4 and 1.2) do not exactly equal the sum ol linite verbs,
participles and inlinitives.

4
1he ratio ol linite verbs in the main clause per sentence is exactly 1.00 by
delinition (see note 2).
98 kL1olk }. AllAN
lowever, il we take a closer look at the text, the two narrative
styles also diller in other respects. we see a prelerence lor the
connective particle c in the complex style (6! /), whereas the
simple style is characterized by the use ol iei (100 /!). 1here are also
dillerences in the use ol tense and aspect. lrom the 1able we can
read that the imperlect is mainly used in the complex style (2 /),
while the historic present tends to occur in the simple style (41 /).

ln other words, apart lrom their dillerence in syntactic complexity,
the two styles also show dillerences in sentence connection and in
the use ol tense and aspect. Note, however, that the dillerence
between the two styles is relative rather than absolute, that is,
leatures that are typical ol one style also occur in the other (albeit
less lrequently). lor example, although the use ol participial clauses
is typical ol the complex style, participles also occur in the simple
style. 1he distinction between the two styles should thus be seen as a
sliding scale rather than as clear-cut. l will return to this issue later.
1he question to be answered now is why these three, seemingly
unrelated, linguistic categories, co-occur. l would like to argue that
the notion ol narrative mode may provide an explanation lor this
phenomenon. 1hese three linguistic leatures ol the text are, in my
view, to be seen as indicators ol narrative mode.
Now what is narrative mode7 Narrative mode relates to the
Jistancc the narrator takes with respect to the narrated events
(oenette 192: 18!-). ln this paper l will build on the wallace chales
delinition ol narrative mode (chale 1994). le distinguishes two
modes ol narration, which occur both in conversational and in
literary language. On the one hand, there is the Jisp|accJ mode, in
which the narrators consciousness is locused (...) on experiences
that were derived lrom another, earlier consciousness, not lrom his
immediate environment (chale 1994: 198). On the other hand, we
have the Jisp|accJ immcJiatc mode, which conveys the impression ol
reliving past experiences as il they were immediate experiences

ln latin a similar use ol the historic present is mentioned by 8chlicher (19!1:

49-0). le states that the most characteristic use ol the historic present is lound in
passages which record a swilt succession ol acts perlormed in a tense and exciting
situation. According to 8chlicher, distinguishing leatures ol such passages are
among others briel and simple sentences, a scarcity ol modiliers, and a marked
absence ol subordinate clauses.
(chale 1994: 2!).
6
lor the sake ol terminological clarity, l will reler
to chales Jisp|accJ immcJiatc mode lrom here on simply as the
immcJiatc mode.
1he narrative situations ol the two narrative modes are
represented in ligure 1. ln the displaced mode the narrator, who is
situated in Narrators 1ime, looks back on events (indicated by a
capital l) which happened earlier on the time-line. 1he act ol
viewing is represented (lollowing the conventions ol cognitive
orammar) by a dashed arrow. ln the immediate mode, the narrator
pretends to be present in the world ol the 8tory 1ime, observing
events simultaneously as they take place.

6
ln conversational language, chale (1994: 196) also distinguishes an immcJiatc
mcJc in which people verbalize experiences that are directly related to their
immediate environments. 1his mode is obviously relevant to the analysis ol direct
speech in Ancient oreek texts, but it need not concern us here.
100 kL1olk }. AllAN
ligure 1: Narrative situations ol the immediate and the displaced
mode: [N = Narrator, l = lvent]

As ol yet there have been very lew comprehensive studies on the
linguistic and narratological leatures ol the narrative modes.
chale,
lor instance, mentions only a lew linguistic properties ol the
narrative modes. According to chale, properties ol the immediate
mode are the use ol the nistcric prcscnt, the use ol prcxima| Jcictic
aJvcrus such as ncrc and ncw, and the use ol Jircct spcccn or jrcc
inJircct spcccn. 1he displaced mode, on the other hand, is associated
with the adverbs tncrc and tncn, the past tcnsc, and inJircct spcccn.

8uzanne Adema is currently preparing a lhu dissertation aiming at a

comprehensive treatment ol narrative mode in Vergils AcnciJ. 8ee also Adema
(200) and her contribution to this volume.
Story Time

E

Story Time

E

N

Narrators Time

N

Narrators Time

N

Time line
Displaced Mode
Immediate Mode
Time line
1able 2: linguistic leatures ol the narrative modes in lnglish
(chale 1994)

lmmediate mode uisplaced mode
listoric lresent
lroximal deictics: ncrc, ncw
uirect 8peechJ lree lndirect 8peech
last 1ense
uistal deictics: tncrc, tncn
lndirect 8peech

A number ol additional linguistic properties ol the two modes have
been proposed by caroline lroon in her 2002 article, which deals
with the issue ol narrative mode in one ol llinys letters.
8
According
to lroon, the most characteristic leature ol the Jicctic mode
which is more or less identical to the Jisp|accJ mode is its high
degree ol narratcria| ccntrc| (see lroon 2002: 191). 1he narrator
recounts the events lrom a point ol view outside the story world,
and he has, therelore, a complete overview ol the entire complex ol
events. 1his overview enables him to manipulate the presentation ol
events in all kinds ol ways. lor example, he can make a distinction
between jcrcrcunJ and uackrcunJ in the story. Another
consequence ol the narrators retrospective knowledge is that he is
able to indicate the exact temporal or causal relation between two
events.
ln the mimctic mode, according to lroon, the narrator pretends
that there is no spatial and temporal distance between the
experience and the reporting ol the events. 1his gives the suggestion
ol an eyewitness report. 1he consequence ol this mode ol narration
is that the narrator will pretend to have little control over the way
the story is told. 1he events are, therelore, narrated necessarily in
their chronological order, without variations in speed. All narrated
events are treated as equally signilicant and loregrounded. 1he
narrator, being overcome by the impact ol the scene, does not
express his personal view on the events.

8
8ee also lroons contribution to this volume.
102 kL1olk }. AllAN
1able !: linguistic leatures ol the narrative modes in latin
(selection lrom lroon 2002)

mi meti c mode
(= lmmediate mode)
[low degree ol narratorial control]
ui egeti c mode
(= uisplaced mode)
[high degree ol narratorial control]
listoric lresent
Lse ol briel and non-complex
sentences, usually occurring in
clusters
Absence ol clear loreground-
background structure
lerlect 1ense (in alternation
with lmperlect)
complex clause structures
Lse ol connectives (e.g. causal
and adversative)

At this point, it is best to return to our passage lrom 1hucydides
book 6. l will try to show that the alternation in styles can be
accounted lor by means ol the two narrative modes. 1he complex
style, as l will argue, can be identilied with the Jisp|accJ mode, and
the simple style with the immcJiatc mode.
9

1able 4: leatures ol the narrative modes in 1huc. 6.100-102
and their relation to narratorial control

ui spl aced mode
(complex style):
lmmedi ate mode
(simple style):
complex
sentences

lackground-
loreground
structure
localizations
8imple
sentences

Only loreground

No localizations
c (8light)
discontinuity
iei continuity
lmperlects,
pluperlects
and Aorists
lackground-
loreground
structure
listoric
lresents
and Aorists
lmmediacy
Only loreground

9
Although l conceive ol the immcJiatc and Jisp|accJ modes in very much the
same way as lroons mimctic and Jicctic modes, l do not adopt her terminology. 1he
reason lor this is to avoid conlusion with the way in which lgbert lakker has used
the terms Jicctic and mimctic earlier (lakker 199b). As will become clear later, it is
especially my notion ol immediate mode which dillers substantially lrom lakkers
mimetic mode.
8lN8l ANu 8lN1lNcl cOmlllXl1Y 10!
! 5cntcncc ccmp|cxity

1he use ol participial clauses and subordinated clauses can be
considered an important indicator ol the displaced mode. lecause
the narrator is looking back with hindsight on the events, he
recognizes which events were central to the story the loreground
and which events turned out to be only circumstantial the
background. As we know, background events are typically coded by
participial and subordinated clauses (lox 198!). consider, lor
example, sentence number (1). lere, a long subordinate clause
introduced by cnci( inlorms us ol the motivation ol the 8yracusans
to return to the city. Other examples ol background subordinate and
participial clauses in 6.100 are: ooucvoi (sentence 1), yiyvocvoi
(1), cnciyocvoi (1), ieteiinovtc (1), o ... qycvoi qoev (2),
tq(oevtc (!), and uniiocvou (!).
ln the immediate mode, however, the narrator pretends to
observe the events as they unlold, and he is therelore unable to
make a distinction between loreground and background events. 1he
narrator presents the events as il they all impinge on his
consciousness with the same psychological lorce, all events are
conceived ol as equally important. ln the immediate mode,
therelore, the narration only consists ol loregrounded events, and
loregrounded events are typically coded as linite main clauses.
10
lor
example, in the sentences () through (1!) most narrated event are
highly signilicant and loregrounded: the capture ol the stockade, the
llight and pursuit ol the 8yracusans, and the destruction ol the
counter wall. 1here are, however, also a lew simple participial
clauses nooeiovtc (sentence ), euto ciiinovtc (6), cvto
ycvocvoi (8), cneve_uqoeoe (10), containing secondary
inlormation. 1he occurrence ol these 4 participles in 9 sentences is
about average lor the immediate (the average rate being 0.4!
participles per sentence, see 1able 1). At this point l would like to

10
8imilar passages in latin are adequately described by 8chlicher: 1he brevity
ol the sentences and their unilormity ol structure indicate that the narrator is
under strong pressure to move lorward, that the successive acts crowd close upon
one another in his mind. 1he absence ol connecting words and subordinate clauses
shows that he does not consciously realize the precise relation between the acts. (...)
le is merely a recorder, and a helpless one at that. (8chlicher 19!1: ).
104 kL1olk }. AllAN
stress that the occurrence ol participles in the immediate mode is
unproblematic lor my analysis. 1he narrative modes appear in their
ideal-typical lorm only very rarely, il at all. lroon characterizes the
appearance ol the narrative modes in narrative thus: Narrative texts
usually display a steady alternation ol more diegetic and more
mimetic sections (lroon 2002: 19!). 1hat is to say, in the end, one
can only state that a particular stretch ol text is rc|ativc|y more
diegetic (= displaced) or more mimetic (= immediate) than another.
As l noted belore regarding the complex and simple styles, the
distinction between the immediate and the displaced mode should
be thought ol as gradual rather than clear-cut.
Another source ol sentence complexity are those participial and
inlinitival constructions which represent the mental state ol a
character in the story, that is, their thoughts, intentions or vision.
lor example, in sentence (!) we lind a threelold accusative and
participle construction depending on tq(oevtc. ly means ol this
internal localization we are inlormed, through the eyes ol the
Athenians, that the 8yracusans were not guarding the stockade
properly. Other examples ol participles, inlinitives and subordinate
clauses involving internal localizations in 6.100 are: (coici) c_civ
(1), (qiOov) iuiuoovtc (1), (ooucvoi) q ... e_uvtei (1),
(noute(ev) Ociv (!), and ci cnioqOoicv (4).
11

1he occurrence ol these participle and inlinitive constructions
can be explained adequately in terms ol the narrative modes. 8ince
the narrator in the displaced mode pretends to be omniscient, he is
able to represent the internal mental states ol the characters in the
story. 1he occurrence ol internal localizations can thus be seen as a
typical leature ol the displaced mode.

4 ccnncctivc artic|cs

1he use ol c can, in my view, be seen as an indicator ol the
displaced mode, whereas iei points to the immediate mode. 1his
dillerence in use can be explained by the dillerent roles ol the

11
1he only case ol internal localization in an immediate mode section is
qyoucvoi cqov eiqociv in sentence (!4).
narrator. As we know, the particle c is typically used to indicate a
slight boundary in the discourse (kuijgh 191: 129-1!, levinsohn
198, lakker 199!). ln many cases, a new discourse topic is
introduced. lor example, in sentence (1), c marks that the topic
switches to the 8yracusans, in sentence (2), c indicates a topic-
switch to the Athenians.
ln other words, by means ol the particle c, the narrator divides
the text into thematic units. 1hese thematic units tend to have an
internal temporal, causal and relerential unity. 1he task ol observing
thematic discontinuities in the course ol events can only be
perlormed by a displaced narrator, who has complete knowledge ol
the course ol events. we may compare this task with the work ol a
lilm editor, who cuts the raw material ol the jauu|a into scenes and
sub-scenes.
ln the immediate mode, on the other hand, the narrator has no
such control over the presentation ol the narration or at least he
prctcnJs to have no such control. 1he narrator verbalizes the
narration simultaneously with the experience ol the events. 1he
prelerence lor iei in this context can be taken as an indicator ol the
immediate mode. lei is typically used to indicate that two syntactic
units are thematically closely connected. whereas c is associated
with Jisccntinuity in discourse, iei indicates ccntinuity. 1he narrator
in the immediate mode observes a continuous sequence ol events,
and the natural way to verbalize this continuous experience is to use
iei as a connective device.
12
lor example, in the sentences ()
through (1!) a chain ol events is connected by means ol iei. 1he

12
ln this connection, it is worthy ol note that syntactically simple sentences,
connected by iei are also typical ol cra| prose narrative (see also 1renkner 1960).
we may hypothesize, therelore, that 1hucydides consciously exploited these typical
oral leatures to create the ellect ol a somewhat naive and artless style. ly doing so,
we might say that the narrator temporarily lays down his pcrscna ol a literary
historian, and takes on the pcrscna ol a reporting eyewitness. 1his switch ol roles, in
my view, serves to enhance a sense ol involvement and immediacy. 1renkner
characterizes passages marked by iei in the historians as lollows: le style de ces
passages chez les historiens consiste prcisment (...) dans la ngligence de lart
littraire, cest-a-dire dans lemploi du langage oral lamilier (1renkner 1960: 62).
Also paratactic syntax (see e.g. lleischman 1990: 18) and the historic present
(uover 199: 68) may have been a conspicuous leatures ol oral prose narrative. lor
the relations between oral language and the sense ol involvement, see chale (1982),
1annen (1982). lor the idea ol dillerent narrativc pcrscnac in connection with
narrative modes, see also lleischman (1990: 61-2).
106 kL1olk }. AllAN
events are causally and temporally tightly connected. lach
subsequent event is directly caused by, or immediately lollows on,
the previous one.
1!
1here is also a continuity ol the discourse topic.
1he Athenians are the discourse topic throughout, with the
exception ol sentence (6), in which the 8yracusan guards are brielly
chosen as the topic.

1cnsc anJ Aspcct: mpcrjcct anJ Acrist

we have seen that variations in sentence structure and sentence
connection can be taken as indicators ol switches in narrative mode.
l would like to argue now that the narrative modes are also relevant
to the use ol tenses and aspects. l will start with the distribution ol
imperlect and aorist lorms. As can be seen in the 1able, the
imperlect occurs in the displaced mode more lrequently than in the
immediate mode (2 / against 9 /). 1his unequal distribution ol
aspect lorms makes sense il we take into consideration their
lunctions in narrative discourse. As known, the imperlect tends to
mark states ol allairs that create a lramework within which other
8oAs may occur (kijksbaron 2002
!
a: 11). lxamples lrom our passage
are: coici (sentence 1), c_uouv (4), ctci_iov (14), and cyiyvcto
(14). As kijksbaron has rightly stated in his study ol the oreek verb,

8ince the imperlect characterizes the state ol allairs as not-
completed it creates a lramework within which other states ol allairs
may occur, while the aorist indicative characterizes the state ol allairs
as completed, as a mere event. 1his dillerence in value between
imperlect and aorist indicative is signilicant lor the way a story is
told. 1he imperlect creates a certain expectation on the part ol the
readerJhearer: what else happened7, the aorist indicative, on the
other hand, does not have this ellect: the state ol allairs has simply
occurred.
14

As l noted belore with regard to participial and subordinated clauses,
it takes a displaced narrator, that is, a narrator with hindsight, to
make a distinction between backgrounded and loregrounded events.

1!
8entence (19) is an exception to the rule. 1he adverb otcov indicates a
prc|cpsis-a narratological device typical ol a displaced (omniscient) narrator.

14
kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 11).
when a narrator marks some events as imperlects, and others as
aorists, he makes a distinction between, on the one hand, events
serving as a lramework and, on the other hand, purely sequential
events. ln making this distinction the narrator shows that he has a
complete overview ol the course ol events. lt is, therelore, to be
expected that we lind the imperlect creating a lramework mainly in
the displaced mode. lor example, in sentence (4), we lind the
imperlect c_uouv. 1he two divisions ol the Athenian army are
advancing, one in the direction ol the city, the other towards the
stockade. 1he imperlect sets up a lramework lor the events to come,
that is, the attack on the stockade. Alter the stockade is taken in
sentence (), the narrative continues with aorist verbs. 1hese
designate events which are loregrounded, non-overlapping,
1
and
equally important to the story-line.
1here are, however, two imperlect verbs in a section which l
consider immediate: cviiuv (sentence 21) and ccuyov (22). As lor
cviiuv, there is a special division ol labour between the imperlect
and the aorist ol viiu. 1he imperlect is typically used in contexts
in which the identity ol the winner ol the battle is in locus. 1he
typical case might be paraphrased as 1here was a battle, and tnc
winncr was (cviie) X. Tviiuv in (21) is an instance ol this type. 1he
aorist is typically used in cases in which the winner is already the
discourse topic (X did such and so, and wcn (cviiqoc)).
16
Although
the reading imperlect ccuyov in (22) is only lound in ms. l (the
others have the aorist cuyov), it is probably sound. 1he imperlect
(they were lleeing) indicates that the 8yracusans did not get into
salety, thus providing a lramework (in the kijksbaronian sense) to
the lollowing events.

6 uistcric rcscnt

Another tense-aspect distinction relevant here is the use ol the
historic present. ln the 1able, we can see that the historic present

1
with the possible exception ol the events described in sentences (8) and (9)
which as oerard loter pointed out to me probably coincide.

16
lerhaps the locus on the identity ol the winner (which is a statc) explains the
use ol the imperlect, whereas the aorist designates a completed action.
108 kL1olk }. AllAN
tends to occur in the immediate mode. A line example is eio0oi in
sentence (). lere we see that the decisive moment, that is, the
capturing ol the stockade is marked by the historic present. 1he
historic present then starts oll a chain ol paratactically connected
sentences. 1his phenomenon can also be observed in the subsequent
episodes. 1he other examples ol historic presents in 6.100-102 are:
cni_cio0oi (sentence 1)
1
, _uouoi (2), tcnouoi (26), coeiiouoiv
(2), enoOvp oici (!0)
18
, Oevouoiv (!1), ncnouoiv (!4), eiou oi (!).
what l would like to claim here is that the historic present is an
important device with which the narrator can switch lrom the
displaced to the immediate mode. 1he nature ol the historic present,
in my view, is closely related to the nature ol the immediate mode.
19

let us lirst consider what the lunction ol the historic present is.
Albert kijksbaron characterizes the historic present in narrative as
lollows:

[ln a number ol nuances ol the historic present] the notion ol
present may play a part to the extent that a pseudo-present or
pseudo-moment ol utterance is created: the narrator plays the role
ol an eyewitness
. 20

1he historic present, in other words, is olten used to create the
impression ol immcJiacy, ol prcscncc at the scene.
21

At this point the question may arise why both historic presents
and aorists (see section ) can occur in the immediate mode. l would

1
ln spite ol the historic present cni_cio0oi, sentence (1) is not in the
immediate mode. 1he overall character ol sentence (1) is more displaced than
immediate due to leatures that are more typical ol the displaced mode: complex
syntax, connective c, perlect tense c(ciyeoto, and embedded localization
(icicuoevtc).

18
1he pathos ol the description ol lamachus unexpected death is apart lrom
the use ol the historic present also ellected by the mentioning ol the number
(live or six) ol men that were killed with him. 1his descriptive (pseudo-)precision
makes it more easy to visualize the event (lornblower 198a: 84, lornblower 198b:
11).

19
1he deployment ol the historic present in the immediate narrative mode has
also been noted by chale (1994: 20-11). 8imilar observations can be lound in
lleischman (1990) and lroon (2002) with regard to the mimetic mode.

20
kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 22).

21
langacker describes the lnglish historic present in similar terms: [1]he
speaker describes a previous sequence ol events as il they were unlolding right now,
belore his eyes, he takes a hearer through them step by step, achieving a sort ol
vividness by portraying them as immediate (langacker 1991: 26).
like to explain this as lollows. lecause it conveys a sense ol presence
and immediacy, the historic present can be considered a positive
marker ol the immediate mode. 1he aorist, on the other hand, is the
unmarked narrative tense.
22
1he more neutral character ol the aorist
allows it to occur in more immediate as well as more displaced
passages. 1his dillerence in character between the historic present
and the aorist is not without consequences. As l have mentioned
previously, the narrative modes have to be thought ol as sliding
scales: some passage are relatively more immediate, others more
displaced. lassages in the historic present (since they are positively
marked as immediate) will be perceived as more immediate than
passages marked by the more neutral aorist tense. ln the extended
passage lrom book 6, we have seen that the decisive moments (or:
leaks, see section 8) are marked by the historic present. 1hey are,
therelore, presented as more immediate than the lollowing events,
which represent the outcome (or: kesolution, see section 8) ol the
decisive moment.

VcJc-switcnin witnin a 5cntcncc

An observant reader ol 1able 1 may have noticed that the number ol
linite verbs in clauses does not equal the number ol sentences. l have
counted 1! linite verbs in main clauses against 16 sentences in the
displaced mode, and 24 linite verbs in main clauses against 21
sentences in the immediate mode. 1his discrepancy can be explained
by the lact that the switch lrom displaced to the immediate mode
may also take placewitnin a sentence. ln the extended passage, there
are three examples ol this type ol switch, namely, in sentence (18),
(2), and (!0). lach ol these three sentences represents a turning
point in the story. ln sentence (18) the Athenians take the 8yracusan
counter wall, in (2) the alarmed 8yracusans launch a counter attack,
in (!0) lamachus, the Athenian general, is killed. ln each ol these
three sentences, aorist participles designate the not very
signilicant events leading up to the sudden climactic event,

22
compare also lleischman (1990: 24), who states that the unmarked tense ol
narration is the perlective past tense.
110 kL1olk }. AllAN
expressed by a historic present. 1his historic present then initiates a
narrative sequence in the immediate mode. 1he aorist participles
denote relatively insignilicant events as participles typically do
and serve to build up the tension. 1he reader is brielly held in
suspense by the series ol participles until the sentence is
syntactically completed by the main verb.
2!
1hen, the tension
reaches a peak marked by the historic present through which the
narrator suddenly zooms in on the climactic event. 1he sequence ol
participles prepares, as it were, the launching ol the historic
present.
24

kounding oll the discussion ol tense and aspect, l conclude that
the notion ol narrative mode can potentially explain many ol the
linguistic properties ol the text. 1he explanatory power ol narrative
mode is shown, in my view, by the lact that it may oller a unilorm
explanation lor the use ol three at lirst glance completely
unrelated linguistic categories, that is, sentence structure,
sentence connection, and tenseJaspect.

8 Narrativc 5tructurc

Now in the second part ol my paper l would like to examine which
textual lactors motivate the switch lrom one mode to another. 1he
appearance ol the immediate mode is olten explained by resorting to
the rather vague and unsatislactory notion ol vividness.
2
ln my
view, however, the occurrence ol the immediate mode can be
explained more adequately by looking at the global structure ol
narratives as it has been described by labov (192) and lleischman
(1990).

2!
cl. leech & 8horts remark: [l]eriodic sentences (...) have a dramatic quality:
they combine the principle ol climax with the principle ol subordination, and so
progress lrom a build-up ol tension to a linal climactic point ol resolution (leech &
8hort 1981: 226).

24
more examples ol this type ol sentence are 1h. 1.8.1, 1.10.6, 1.1!2., 8.42.2. A
line lerodotean example is 1.4.!.

2
lor example, oenette (192: 18) says that the mimetic mode (which is related
to the immediate mode) tells the story in an alive manner (laon vivante). ln the
same vein, the historic present is olten claimed to have a vivid ellect. lor critical
discussions ol the notion ol viviJncss in connection with the historic present, see
8icking & 8tork 199: 1!1-4, kijksbaron 2002b: 2, 261-2)

1able : 1he olobal 8tructure ol Narrative
(labov 192: !62-0, lleischman 1990: 1!-14)

a. Abstract:
b. Ori entati on:

c. compl i cati on:
d. leak:
e. lval uati on:
l. kesol uti on:
g. coda:
loint ol story or summary ol signilicant events
ldentilication ol the time, place, participants, and
their activities
luild-up ol 1ension
climax
Narrators comment
OutcomeJ result
closure

Narratives lrequently start oll by giving the point ol the story or by
telling the most signilicant events. 1his is called the Abstract. 1hen,
at the outset ol the narrative proper, the time, place, participants,
and their activities are presented. 1his is the Orientation ol the
story. 1he complication consists ol the action by which tension
gradually builds up, eventually leading to the climax ol the story: the
leak. ln the lvaluation section the narrator comments on the
content ol the story and its signilicance. lvaluative elements tend to
appear around the leak, but they may also occur interspersed
throughout the story. Alter the leak, the story comes to a
kesolution, in which the outcome ol the story is told. 1he story ends
with a coda, which is olten ol a lormulaic character (ol the type and
they lived happily ever alter). 8tories typically show an episodic
structure, that is, stories tend to contain multiple leaks, providing a
proliled pattern ol build-ups and relaxations ol tension. ln other
words, most stories show a recursive structure ol complications,
leaks and kesolutions.
26
1his pattern is represented schematically in
1able 6:

26
1his episodic narrative schema is similar to the schema presented by
lludernik (1996: 6).
112 kL1olk }. AllAN
1able 6: lpisodic 8tructure ol Narrative

Abstract
Orientation
[complication leak kesolution]
lpisode

1

lpisode 2

...
lpisode n

lvaluation
coda

1he relation between narrative structure and narrative mode
becomes clear il we consider at which moments in the story switches
ol narrative mode occur. lt appears that ij 1hucydides switches to
the immediate mode, he switches at the leak ol the episode. le may,
consequently, remain in the immediate mode in (part ol) the
kesolution section.
2
ly entering the immediate mode at the leak, he
zooms in on the scene to ellect a stronger sense ol dramatic
involvement at the climax and the linal outcome ol the story. On the
other hand, it appears that the Orientation, the complication and
the lvaluation are narrated in the displaced mode. ln these parts ol
the story, the narrator has to remain in lull control ol the narration
in order to give the story a spatiotemporal orientation, to gradually
build up the tension, and, linally, to evaluate the signilicance ol the
story to the communicative context ol the story-telling. 1he typical
pattern ol switches in narrative modes is presented in 1able :

2
ln section 6, l noted that the kesolution sections in 6.100-102 are in a less
marked immediate mode than the leaks because most linite verbs are in the aorist
tense. As can be seen in the extended passage, l regard sentence (!2) as displaced
due to its connective particle c and its imperlect tense enc_uouv. lurthermore,
the genitive absolute clause cniovto qq iei tou diiou otetcueto tuv
AOqveiuv is a case ol localization which states the internal motivation ol the
8yracusans to withdraw. 1he imperlect tense provides a lramework to the lollowing
events which were meanwhile (cv tout() taking place elsewhere. 1hus it creates a
cohesive link between the end ol the kesolution section and the start ol the
lollowing complication section. An imperlect with a comparable lunction is
ccuyov in (22).
8lN8l ANu 8lN1lNcl cOmlllXl1Y 11!
1able : 1ypical lattern ol Narrative modes

Abstract uisplaced mode
Orientation uisplaced mode
complication uisplaced mode
leak lmmediate mode
kesolution lmmediate or uisplaced mode
lvaluation uisplaced mode
coda uisplaced mode

1hat the immediate mode typically appears at leaks in the story is
born out by the passage lrom book 6. 1o demonstrate this point, l
will make a short analysis ol the narrative structure ol the passage.
1he passage cited lrom book 6 is, ol course, only a small part ol the
story ol the 8icilian expedition told in book 6 and . 1he story ol the
expedition to 8icily shows an episodic structure as represented in
1able 8:

1able 8: Narrative structure ol the story ol the 8icilian expedition

Abstract (6.1.1)
Orientation (6.1.2-6.6) [listory settlements, war lgesta vs.
8elinus]
lpisode 1 (6..1-2) [8partans plunder Argos, Argos demolishes
Orneae]
...
lpisodes l-V (6.100-6.102) [cited above]
...
lpisode n (.86-8) [1he Athenians are being held in quarries]
lvaluation (.8.-6)
coda (.8.6)

ln 6.1, we lind the Abstract ol the story:

[2] 1hucydides 6.1.1
to0 eto0 _ciuvo AOqveioi couiovto eOi ciovi neeoicup
tq cte A_qto ie lucovto cn 5iiciiev nicuoevtc
ieteotceoOei, c uveivto.

ln the same winter the Athenians wanted to sail again to 8icily, with a
greater armament than that under laches and lurymedon, and to
conquer it, il they could.

1he abstract is lollowed by an extended Orientation (6.1.2-6.6). ln
this excursus, the background ol the 8icilian story is set by an
114 kL1olk }. AllAN
account ol the history ol the settlements on 8icily, lollowed by an
account ol the way in which Athens had become involved in the war
between lgesta and 8elinus.
28
At 6., the lirst episode ol the 8icily-
story is narrated, lollowed by a long series ol episodes.
29
lor lack ol
space, here l will only locus on the episode told in chapter 6.100, in
which the Athenians attack the 8yracusan counter wall and destroy
it.
ln the complication section ol this episode, tension builds up as
the Athenians prepare lor a conlrontation while the 8yracusans do
not suspect an attack. 1he complication in this section obviously
consists mainly in the opposite goals ol the Athenians and the
8yracusans. 1he 8yracusans intend to protect the counter wall, while
the Athenians aim at its demolition. 1he reader is inlormed ol their
intentions and conllicting goals by means ol a number ol internal
localizations.
As l noted belore, localizations tend not to occur at the leak and
the kesolution. whereas in the complication section the intcrna|,
psychological world ol the characters is ol major importance, the
leak and kesolution are concerned with the cxtcrna|, visible world,
consisting ol actions. As we have seen, the complication section is
characterized by a number ol linguistic leatures which are typical ol
the displaced mode. we lind relatively complex sentences with many
embedded participles and inlinitive clauses. 1he sentences are
connected by the particle c ! out ol 4 times, and we lind imperlect
verb lorms. 1he tension reaches its climax when the Athenians take
the stockade at (6.100.2). lere, as is olten the case at the leak ol an
episode, the tense switches to the historic present.
!0
1he historic
present is olten said to mark states ol allairs that are ol decisive
importance to the story. Alter the leak, the episode reaches its

28
An account ol the anterior events (analepsis) is a common element ol
Orientations (see also lonheim 1982: 101-, lleischman 1990: 140).

29
Note, however, that only chapters 6.4-9 (the excursus about Aristogiton and
larmodius) do not belong to the story-line ol the 8icilian expedition. 1his notable
exception may be explained as a mirror text (see also kood 1998: 180). l would also
like to note here that a number ol thematically linked episodes may constitute a
larger narrative unit (macro-episode). lor example, the events at lpipolae told in
6.96-6.10! (ol which my extended sample in [1] is a part) can be seen as such a
macro-episode, that is, a larger unit ol thematically linked episodes.

!0
lor the historic present as a typical marker ol narrative leaks, see lleischman
(1990: 142), lludernik (1991: !).
kesolution. 1he !00 chosen Athenians pursue the 8yracusans, who
have taken reluge round the statue ol Apollo 1emenites, but they are
driven out. 1he Athenians then retire, carry the stakes ol the
counter wall to their own lines, and set up a trophy. ln the
kesolution section (6.100.2-!), we can see that the events ol the story
are mainly marked by the aorist indicative. Apart lrom the changes
in tense marking at the leak and the kesolution, we also lind a
change in the way sentences are connected. At the leak and the
kesolution (6.100.2-!) sentences are consistently connected by
means ol iei. linally, it can be seen that at the leak and the
kesolution sentences become signilicantly shorter than in the
complication section.
lor the sake ol completeness, l will linish my analysis ol the
global structure ol book 6 and by noting that we can also lind an
lvaluation section and a coda at the end ol the 8icily episode.
!1
ch.
.8.-6 contains an lvaluation. 1here, 1hucydides makes a personal
statement about the great signilicance ol the 8icilian expedition lor
lellenic history. 1he narrative ol the 8icilian expedition terminates
with a short coda, summarizing and rounding oll the events: te0te
cv te nc 5iiciiev ycvocve (1h. .8.6).
!2

1he combination ol historic presents, paratactic syntax and ie as
connective can also be lound in other passages in the uistcrics.

[!] 1hucydides .8!.!-
[Nicias is inlormed by the 8yracusans ol uemosthenes surrender.
Nicias proposes to pay lor his armys liberty.]
a. oi c 5ueiooioi ie luiinno o noocc_ovto to ioyou,
b. eiie nooncoovtc ie nciotvtc nevte_oOcv ceiiov ie
toutou c_i oc.
c. ci_ov c ie otoi nov(u oitou tc ie tuv cnitqciuv enoi.
d. u c tq vuito ui(evtc to qou_ov cciiov
nocuocoOei.
e. ie eveievouoi tc te nie
l. ie oi 5ueiooioi eoOvovtei

!1
1he tragic story ol the 8icilian lxpedition clearly stands out within the
uistcrics as a sell-contained literary unit. [1]he language at the end ol book , as
lornblower notes, seems devastatingly linal and the closure absolute. (...) One
wonders il the 8icilian books were meant originally lor recitation (lornblower
2002
!
: 12).

!2
Note the particle cv (lollowed by c in 8.1), which is lrequent in clauses
rounding oll a discourse unit (see lakker 199!: !0!).
116 kL1olk }. AllAN
g. ie cneivioev.
h. yvovtc c oi AOqveioi ti o ievOvouoi, ietcOcvto niiv niqv
tieiooiuv iiote evuv
i. otoi c ie tuv uiiuv ieocvoi c_uouv tq vuito p
cuvevto.

oylippus and the 8yracusans did not accept these proposals, but
attacked and surrounded them and hurled missiles at them lrom
every side until the evening. 1hey too were wretched oll in want ol
lood and other necessities. Nevertheless they intended to wait lor the
dead ol night and then to march on. And they took up their arms, and
the 8yracusans discovered them and raised the laean. 1he Athenians,
realizing that they were detected, laid down their arms again, except
lor about !00 men who lorced their way through the enemys guard,
and went on through the night as best they could.

ln this passage, a typical pattern can be discerned. ln the lirst
sentences ol this passage we are told that the 8yracusans reject
Nicias oller, and continue to attack Nicias men. Nicias intends to
march away. 1hese events constitute the complication ol this
episode characterized by a number ol displaced linguistic leatures.
1he scene is set by means ol a number ol imperlects describing the
nature ol the Athenians desperate situation ([o] noocc_ovto,
ceiiov, ci_ov) and their intention to escape it (cciiov).
!!

lurthermore, the sentences are linked by the particle c (oi c
5ueiooioi ..., ci_ov c ..., u c ...) and once by eii
!4
, and their
syntactic structure is relatively complex. At the leak the
Athenians take up their arms but are discovered the narrator
switches to the immediate mode by shilting to historic presents
(eveievouoi, eoOvovtei), to the connective particle iei, and to
a paratactic syntax. Alter the leak, the narrative switches back to
the displaced mode, by the alternation ol aorists (ietcOcvto) and
imperlects (c_uouv, cuvevto), and by the use ol c (yvovtc c ...,
otoi c ...). 1here is also a case ol internal localization by the
Athenians: yvovtc c oi AOqveioi ti o ievOvouoi.

!!
1he verb cciiov represents a case ol internal localization a typical leature
ol the displaced mode.

!4
kecall that the use ol specilic causal or, in this case, adversative connectives is
a leature ol the displaced mode.
1he last example to be discussed here is ol a somewhat dillerent
character in that it shows an extraordinarily persistent use ol the
historic present, creating an extended leak:

[4] 1hucydides 8.!4
[Nicias is inlormed by the 8yracusans ol uemosthenes surrender.
Nicias proposes to pay lor his armys liberty.]
a. Tv tout( c ie q tuv AOqveiuv otetie tei veuov ci to0
luuiou ncinicouoe
b. iet Ayivov cnituy_vci tio veuo tuv Xiuv eiei,
c. ie u ciov, ciuiov
d. ie _ciuv tc cye cniyiyvctei
e. ie ei cv tuv Xiuv oii ietecuyouoiv c tov iicve,
l. ei c tuv AOqveiuv ei cv iiote o(oeoei tci
ieOciovtei
g. ie cinintouoi no tqv noiiv tuv Xiuv,
h. ie dvc oi cv eiioiovtei,
i. oi enoOvpoiouoiv,
j. ei diiei ietecuyouoiv c tov no t( mievti iicve
4oiviio0vte ieioucvov.

meanwhile also the Athenian lorce that was sailing round lrom
corycus lell in with three chian warships oll Arginus, and went alter
them as soon as they saw them. And a great storm came on, and the
chian ships with dilliculty took reluge in the harbour, but the three
Athenian ships larthest in lront were wrecked and driven ashore near
the city ol chios, and the crews were either killed or taken prisoners.
1he other ships took reluge in the harbour called lhoenicus, under
mount mimas.

ln this episode, the narrator exploits the ellect ol the historic
present to draw the reader into the scene, turning the reader into an
eye-witness experiencing the drama ol the events. Apart lrom the
remarkable number ol historic presents we also lind other indicators
ol the immediate mode paratactic syntax and a repeated use ol iei
as sentence connective.
!

!
1here are more passages in 1hucydides which display the combination ol
linguistic leatures mentioned above, that is, lrequent use ol the historic present,
predominant use ol iei as a connective particle, and paratactic syntax. lxamples ol
this type are: 2.9.!- (climax ol the battle between the Athenians and the
chalcidians at 8partolus), !.89.! (tsunami at Atalanta), 8.10.4.-9 (the Athenians
disable the enemy ships and kill their commander), 8.19.!-4 (1he Athenians take
lour chian ships), 8.22.2 (the leloponessians and the chians incite the revolt ol
methymna and mytilene), 8..!.9-12 (the Athenians rout the chians and kill

118 kL1olk }. AllAN
A special leature ol this passage is its partial lack ol temporal
progression. lirst, the narrative events cnituy_vci, ciuiov and
cniyiyvctei are ordered sequentially. 1hen, story time comes to a
pause as two simultaneously occurring events are described. 1he
lirst concerns the chian ships (ei cv ...), the latter the lastest
Athenian ships (ei c ...): (1) ei cv tuv Xiuv oii ietecuyouoiv
c tov iicve, (2) ei c tuv AOqveiuv ei cv iiote o(oeoei
tci ieOciovtei.
!6
1he story then locuses on the lastest Athenian
ships ol which it is told that they are driven ashore (cinintouoi).
Again, narrative time comes to a standstill, and two simultaneous
events are narrated: the men aboard the ships are either (oi cv ...)
caught, or (oi ...) killed. linally, the syntactic construction
indicates that the historic present ei diiei ietecuyouoiv should
be interpreted as being simultaneous with ei cv iiote o(oeoei
tci (...) and thereby also simultaneous with ei cv tuv Xiuv
oii ietecuyouoiv c tov iicve. Again, there is no temporal
progression. 1his mixture ol sequential events, propelling the
narrative lorward, and simultaneous events, pausing the narrative,
gives this passage a somewhat hybrid character it is neither
purely narrative, nor purely descriptive. ln this way, 1hucydides
presents us with a lively tau|cau which is partly dynamic, partly
static.

9 1nc 5tatus cj tnc Narratcr

A linal issue l would like to discuss concerns the status ol the
narrator in the immediate mode. ln the uistcrics, narration by an
omniscient, heterodiegetic narrator (i.e. zero localization) typically
alternates with character-bound (internal) localization. lt appears,
however, that the lapses into the immediate mode represent
deviations ol these typical narrative situations in the uistcrics.

ledaritus). Note that every one ol these passages describes a dramatic climax (leak)
ol some kind. ln general, however, 1hucydides narrative style is to be characterized
as displaced.

!6
As an important instrument to organize the inlormational structure ol the
story, the cv...c-construction requires a narrator in control. lt shows, again, that
the narrator may at times employ il needs be devices which are more typical ol
the displaced mode.
lirstly, the narrator in the immediate mode suspends, albeit brielly,
the idea that he is omniscient and telling the story lrom a
retrospective point ol view. 1he authorial narrator, in other words,
steps back (or, rather, pretends to do so). 8econdly, the absence ol
internal points ol view and the exclusive locus on the narration ol
perceptible events implies that we are dealing with cxtcrna|
localization.
!
And, linally, although the immediate narrator should
be seen as nctcrcJicctic, he is clearly an atypical one. ly assuming
the role ol an eyewitness, the narrator intrudes on the level ol the
story and the characters.
lt is perhaps elucidating to contrast the narrator in the immediate
mode with the so-called camera eye narrator. 1he camera eye
technique was lirst described by Norman lriedman delining it as
lollows: [lt is] (...) the ultimate in authorial exclusion. lere the aim
is to transmit, without apparent selection or arrangement, a slice ol
lile as it passes belore the recording medium (lriedman 19: 118).
As an example ol a narrator who proclaims to assume the role ol a
camera, lriedman quotes lrom the lirst page ol lsherwoods novel
6ccJuyc tc 8cr|in (19!9): l am a camera with its shutter open, quite
passive, recording, not thinking (...). 1he camera eye technique
involves a depersonalization ol the narrators consciousness. 1he
camera eye has no access to memory, it is only directed at the
registration ol the external world: 1here is the rellection on the
retina, but not the rellection in the mind, as casparis (19: 1)
lormulates it.
!8
clearly, the camera eye technique is similar to our
immediate mode in the manner in which reality is presented.
lowever, the two narration types diller in, at least, two important
respects. lirstly, the camera eye technique involves intcrna|
localization. As has been indicated by 8tanzel, camera eye narration
involves an internal perspective (nncnpcrspcktiv), albeit one ol a

!
cl. lals characterization ol external localization: (...) an anonymous agent,
situated outside the labula, is lunctioning as the localizor (lal 199
2
: 148).

!8
Obviously, the depersonalization ol the representation ol reality by means ol
the camera eye technique cannot be carried through in literature to the same
degree as in lilm: 1here can be no pretence ol rellecting like a mirror. camera eye
technique is linked to humanity physiologically in terms ol 6csta|t perception not to
speak ol its dependence on human language. lt can merely aspirc to present
sensation detached lrom cognition, mental rellection, evaluation, emotion, within
the limits ol language (casparis 19: !).
120 kL1olk }. AllAN
strongly depersonalized character (8tanzel 2001
: 29). 1hus, 8tanzel

lollows casparis in his view that the camera eye is related to the
interior monologue, which is also a lorm ol internal localization.
8econdly, the camera eye involves a ncmcJicctic narrator.
!9

A second issue l would like to address here brielly is the relation
ol the immediate mode with lakkers mimctic mcJc as it has been set
out in lakker (199c).
40
loth modes ol narration involve a narrator
who pretends to be an observer at the centre ol the narrated events.
1here are, however, a number ol dillerences: the lirst dillerence
concerns their respective use ol tense and aspect. lakkers mimetic
mode is chielly conveyed by imperlect verb lorms, whereas the
immediate mode is typically marked by the historic present.
contrary to the immediate mode, therelore, the mimetic mode is
explicitly marked as being Jisp|accJ by its use ol past (imperlect)
tenses (see also lakker 199c: 18). A second dillerence is that the
mimetic mode may involve the description ol static situations (e.g.
lakker 199c: 8-9). 1he immediate mode, conversely, is typically
dynamic in character: events are narrated while they are (rapidly)
lollowing on one another.
41
A third dillerence relates to the issue ol
localization. As l argued above, the immediate mode involves
cxtcrna| localization. lakkers mimetic mode, on the other hand, may
at times also involve intcrna| localization (or character localization,
see lakker 199c: 29). 1he exact relationship, however, between
lakkers mimetic mode and my immediate mode and their lunction
in narrative remains a topic lor lurther research.

10 ccnc|usicn

1he uselulness ol the concept ol narrative mode resides especially in
its ability to account lor many dillerent aspects ol the text, linguistic
as well as narratological ones. lurthermore, the narrative modes are

!9
8tanzels paradigm example ol the camera eye technique is a ja|cusic by
kobbe-orillet. ln this novel, the owner ol the camera eye is a jealous spouse
peeping through the blinds.

40
lakkers diegetic mode can be compared with my displaced mode.

41
1hucydides 8.!4, with its alternation ol sequential and simultaneous events,
appears to be exceptional in this respect.
also relevant to the analysis ol the overall structure ol the story. 1he
link between narrative mode and narrative structure can be
explained by the rhetorical lunction ol narrative mode. 8witching
narrative modes is a technique to involve the reader more directly in
the drama ol the story (such as the rapid reversals ol the battle). 1he
dramatic quality ol 1hucydides narrative in general has been
emphasized by connor: we do not usually think ol 1hucydides as a
writer who keeps drawing his readers into the narrative until they
leel they are present, actually experiencing them. lut 1hucydides
achieves this implication to an extraordinary degree. we do not
olten let ourselves be caught up in the vicarious experience he
describes, but we should (connor 198: 10). According to connor,
this experiential, or participatory aspect ol 1hucydides work is
perhaps even the most important source ol its authority (connor
198: 9-10). Already llutarch praised 1hucydides lor his ability to
render the reader a spectator ol the events he describes as well as
lor his striving lor cvycie (vividness) (uc |cr. Atn. !4a).
1hucydides employment ol the immediate mode can be thought ol
as yet another technique to achieve cvycie in his writing.
42

42
lt interesting to note, in this connection, that Quintilian (nst. 9.2.41) regards
the use ol the (historic) present one ol the leatures ol the immediate mode as a
device to achieve cuiJcntia. lor a study ol cvycie in historiography, see walker
(199!).

clAl1lk 8lVlN

A8llc1LAl ullllklNcl8 ANu NAkkA1lVl 1lclNlQLl:
XlNOllON8 uNcA & A65A05

michel luijs

1 ntrcJucticn

ln the study ol the opposition aorist indicativeJimperlect in Ancient
oreek, it is olten considered helplul to substitute the one member ol
this so-called aspectual opposition lor the other, and see what
dillerence this would make. ln the case ol modern languages,
linguists have the possibility ol producing two texts that diller in
aspectual lorms only, and ol asking a native speaker how he
experiences the two texts. ln the case ol a dead language such as
Ancient oreek, we cannot consult a native speaker, but we have
parallel passages in Xenophons uc||cnica and Acsi|aus that in some
cases show dillerences in the aspectual choice ol their verbal
constituents, while the exact same real-world situation is being
described. Neither in the discussion ol Ancient oreek aspect, nor in
discourse-centered linguistics have these passages received lull
consideration. ln this paper l present a treatment ol these parallel
passages in terms ol discourse organization and narrative technique.

2 6cnrc anJ 1ypcs cj uisccursc

1he uc||cnica can be regarded as a historical narrative, that is, one ol
its main characteristics is the linguistic representation ol historical
events
1
in temporal sequence.
2
Yet Xenophon has not narrated them

1
lor an overview ol the problems connected with the notion ol event, see
lleischman (1990: 9-100).

2
1he temporal orientation ol the uc||cnica manilests itsell at the immediate
beginning ol the work, when Xenophon continues where 1hucydides had stopped

A8llc1LAl ullllklNcl8 ANu NAkkA1lVl 1lclNlQLl 12!
in strict chronological order, some thematically linked events are
grouped together lor reasons ol convenience in narrating. 1here is
no main narrative line lor the work as a whole, rather, the uc||cnica
consists ol dillerent narrative lines brought in connection with one
another within the over-all structure ol the text. Olten a given
narrative line is interrupted by a change in orientation towards
time, place, or cast ol participants, sometimes to be taken up later.
1he Acsi|aus is an encomium.
!
lt opens with a proem (1.1),
lollowed by a short treatment ol Agesilaus high birth (1.2-).
8ections 1.6-2.!1 are dedicated to the actions (cye) ol his reign,
4
this
treatment covers more than hall ol the text. 8ection !.1 establishes
the transition lrom the heros actions to his virtues (ectei), which
are discussed one by one in !.2-9..
1he Acsi|aus closes oll with

what might be called an epilogue (10) and a summary (11).
ln his account ol Agesilaus actions, Xenophon uses narrative
episodes to illustrate Agesilaus qualities as a general, lor, he says,
uc|icvc tnat jrcm nis JccJs nis ua|itics, tcc, wi|| uc ivcn tnc c|carcst
imprcssicn cj.
6
le has chosen the lorm ol narrative, lor ncw ccu|J cnc
ivc a c|carcr imprcssicn cj wnat kinJ cj cncra| nc was tnan uy narratin

with cte c te0te o noiiei qcei otcov: ajtcr tnis, nct many Jays |atcr
(note the particle c), compare also the nal sentence ol the uc||cnica: co cv q
c_i toutou yecoOu te c cte te0te ou dii( ci(oci: tnus jar uc it writtcn uy
mc, tnc cvcnts ajtcr tncsc wi|| pcrnaps uc tnc ccnccrn cj anctncr.

!
lt is characterized as such by Xenophon in Acsi|aus 10.!: eiie ye q ti
tctcicutqiu cneivcitei toutou vcie Oqvov ti to0tov tov ioyov voiotu,
eiie noi diiov cyiuiov: 8ut |ct it nct uc tncunt tnat, uccausc cnc wncsc |ijc is
cnJcJ is praiscJ, jcr tnis rcascn tnis tcxt is a juncra| Jirc, it sncu|J ratncr uc rcarJcJ as an
cnccmium.

4
1he opening and closure ol this part ol the text are explicitly indicated: 1.6:

oe
yc qv cv tp eoiici icn(eto v0v qq iqy(ooei: wi|| ncw ivc a narrativc cj tnc
acnicvcmcnts cj nis rcin!.1: ie te0te cv q cqtei oe tuv cicivou cyuv cte
niciotuv etuuv cn_Oq: sucn, tncn, is tnc rcccrJ cj my ncrcs JccJs, sc jar as tncy
wcrc Jcnc ucjcrc a crcwJ cj witncsscs. 8imilarly, the account ol Agesilaus activities in
Asia is explicitly introduced and rounded oll: 1.10: cv toivuv tp Aoi qc nutq
nd(i cycvcto: wc||, nis rst act in Asia was tnc jc||cwin1.!8: tuv cv q cv tp Aoi
n(cuv to0to tcio cycvcto: tnis tncn was tnc cnJ cj nis activitics in Asia.

1his part ol the text is lramed by the sentences v0v c tqv cv tp u_p eto0
ectqv nciooei qio0v, i qv te0te cnettc ie nvtuv tuv ieiuv qe ie
nvte te- eo_e c(ciuicv: ncw wi|| attcmpt tc sncw tnc virtuc tnat was in nis scu|,
tnc virtuc tnrcun wnicn nc wrcunt tncsc JccJs anJ |cvcJ a|| tnat is ncncurau|c anJ put
away a|| tnat is uasc (!.1) and cyu cv ov toie0te cneivu Ayqoiieov: sucn, tncn, arc
tnc ua|itics jcr wnicn praisc Acsi|aus (10.1).

6
Acsi|aus 1.6.
124 mlclll lLl}8
tnc tnins nc JiJ
1he text is agent oriented, time is not projected,

and Agesilaus actions are narrated in chronological order, yet
temporal succession is not contingent: narrative episodes are
presented in blocks that are selected lor the purpose ol eulogy. lt is
clearly the speaker who presents the narrative episodes as examples:
he is, explicitly or implicitly, present throughout the text, olten
commenting upon the actions by giving an evaluative statement.
1hus, the Acsi|aus on the whole might be regarded as behavioural
discourse, albeit with narrative chunks interwoven in the account ol
the heros actions.
8

1he two distinct discursive systems operating in the account ol
Agesilaus actions may be conveniently investigated by dividing the
dillerent parts ol this account into diegesis
9
and commentary, as
dened by lleischman:

1he term diegesis, which goes back to llatos kcpuu|ic, is used here to
reler to sentences ol narraticn prcpcr. As used in this sense, diegesis
contrasts, on the one hand, with Jircct|y uctcJ spcccn, which is
mimetic (an imitation ol real speech), and, on the other, with
ccmmcntary by the narrator, which is neither mimetic in that it is
not a representation ol speech but speech itsell nor diegetic in
that it relers not to the story-world but to the world ol the narrator at
the time ol the narrating.
10

Lsing lleischmans terms,
11
l present a survey ol the structure ol
Acsi|aus 1.6-!.1 in 1able 1:
12

Acsi|aus 1.9.

8
lor a characterization ol discourse types, see longacre (198!).

9
1he verb iqycoei is used three times in introductory sentences (1.6. 1.9, and
2.9).

10
lleischman (1990: !6 n.22).

11
uiegesis and commentary would roughly correspond to the discourse modes
ol Narrative and Argument in the terminology ol 8mith (200!, especially !!: An
argument passage brings something to the attention ol the reader, makes a claim,
ccmmcnt, or argument and supports it in some way, my italics).

12
ln the 1ables, b, m, and e indicate the beginning, middle, and end ol a section
in the Oxlord classical 1ext, respectively.
A8llc1LAl ullllklNcl8 ANu NAkkA1lVl 1lclNlQLl 12
1able 1: Xenophon, Acsi|aus 1.6-!.1: 8tructure

1.1-6
b
: commentary
1.6-8: uiegesis
1.9-10
b
: commentary
1.10-11: uiegesis
1.12: commentary
1.1!-16: uiegesis
1.1: commentary
1.18-24: uiegesis
1.24
e
: commentary
1.2-!: uiegesis
1.!6-!: commentary
1.!8: uiegesis
1.!8
e
: commentary
2.1-6: uiegesis
2.: commentary
2.8: uiegesis
2.9
b
: commentary
2.9-11: uiegesis
2.12
b
: commentary
2.12-21: uiegesis
2.21
e
: commentary
2.22: uiegesis
2.2!
b
: commentary
2.2!-24: uiegesis
2.2
b
: commentary
2.2-26: uiegesis
2.2
b
: commentary
2.2: uiegesis
2.28
b
: commentary
2.28-!1: uiegesis
!.1
b
: commentary

1he diegetic episodes are either copied lrom the uc||cnica and
pasted into the Acsi|aus with slight alterations, or based upon this
earlier written text. lt is, in my opinion, most probable that
Xenophon had a copy ol the uc||cnica at hand when he wrote the
Acsi|aus.
1!
Although the capacity ol the oreeks memory may have
surpassed ours by lar, claiming that Xenophon wrote the duplicates
lrom memory would in view ol the large number ol literal
correspondences be overjudging his skills.
1able 2 presents an overview ol these parallel passages (
indicates near-literal correspondence, cl. means that the text ol the
Acsi|aus is merely based upon that ol the uc||cnica).

1!
1erwelp (18!: 26-2), although he does not ascribe the Acsi|aus to Xenophon,
holds the same position as to the generation ol the text: ex iis, quae attuli, satis
opinor elucet, laudatorem, Xcncpncntis nistcria suu ccu|is pcsita plurima ad uerbum
transscripsisse, aliis usum esse ita, ut breuior uberiorem, obscurior illustriorem
secutus esse uideatur, my italics.
126 mlclll lLl}8
1able 2: Xenophon, Acsi|aus 1.6-!.1: parallel passages

1.6-8 cl. uc||. !.4.1-4
1.10-11 1.10: uc||. !.4.-6
b
concise
1.11uc||. !.4.6
e

1.1!-16 uc||. !.4.11-12
1.18-24 1.2!-24uc||. !.4.1
1.2-! 1.2-!2uc||. !.4.16-24,
1.!
b
uc||. !.4.2
b

2.1-6 2.2-uc||. 4.!.!-9,
2.6: cl. uc||. 4.!.1-16
2.9-1! uc||. 4.!.16-20
2.1-16 uc||. 4.!.20-21
2.1 cl. uc||. 4.4.19
2.18-19 cl. uc||. 4..1-!
2.20 cl. uc||. 4.6.1-12
2.21 2.21
b
: cl. uc||. .1.!2-!4,
2.21
m
: cl. uc||. .2.8-10,
.!.10-1
2.22 cl. uc||. .4.!8-41, .4.4-4
2.2! cl. uc||. 6..10-21
2.24 cl. uc||. 6..2!-!2

As will be clear lrom the preceding, the commentaries by the author
lorm the backbone ol the treatment ol Agesilaus achievements, the
diegetic passages being illustrations. 1hey structure the text, in that
they introduce or evaluate a certain action, or introduceJbreak oll a
discourse (sub)topic. Various linguistic characteristics recur in these
commentaries, such as certain particles ov in evaluations and yc
(v in introductions , rst person relerence, non-diegetic tenses
(luture and perlect tense stems), anaphoric and cataphoric deictic
elements, and rhetorical questions. 1he recurring leatures serve as
guides to the meaning ol the alternating passages ol diegesis and
commentary in this text. A survey ol these recurring linguistic
characteristics and the structuring lunction in the commentaries is
presented in 1able !:

1able !: Xenophon, Acsi|aus 1.6-!.1: commentaries

linguistic characteristics 8tructuring lunction
1.6
b

1.9

1.10
b

yc (v, v0v qq, rst person verbs
with luture relerence (iqy(ooei,
voiucocoOei).
yc (v, rhetorical question: nu dv
ticnici(cicv( ciqy(oeito,
toivuv, deictic element (qc).

lntroduction ol discourse
topic Activities.

Announcement ol treatment
by means ol diegesis.
Abstract: introduction ol
discourse subtopic Activities

14
lac. indicavit marchant : ievte0Oe ov add. det. : ie te0te c l. 8auppe.
linguistic characteristics 8tructuring lunction

1.12

1.1
1.24
e

1.!6

1.!

1.!8
e

2.

2.9
b

2.12
b

2.21
e

2.2!
b

2.2
b

2.2
b

2.28
b

!.1
b

ov, rst person relerence (coi

oici), deictic element (to0to).
ov, deictic element (to0to).
ov, deictic element (to0t).
yc (v, d(iov (sc. cotiv), deictic
element (cvtc0Ocv), oti
yc (v, rhetorical question: nu oi
e(icneivou, oti
cv (, deictic element (to0to).

lirst person verbs (ic(uv c_oei,
icyoii, oiu, cneivoiqv, eiie
diiov

dyeei), rst person
relerence (oi, ceutov), c
clauses-optative, deictic elements
(to0to, te0te, t).
lirst person luture (iqy(ooei),
rst person relerence (c quv).
ueictic element (cvte0Oe)- (,
c(cotiv cnciv, cvtoiyc.
c c ti, deictic element (te0te),
eii ovyc, evc coti.
te cv q c_i toutouoe yc qv
cte to0to, optative (oc dv
cnoi).
yc (v, rhetorical question (nu oi
dv eiq ti,).
ievte0Oe ov-,
14
d(ie Oeueto.
qq, pluperlect (cycyovci).
ieicv (, deictic element (te0te),
perlect (cqtei).

in Asia.
lvaluation.

lvaluation.
lvaluation.
lntroduction and evaluation
ol another achievement.
8ummary: discourse
subtopic: Activities in Asia
abandoned.

lntroduction ol discourse
subtopic: battle.
1

lvaluation.

lvaluation.

1emporal transition.

lvaluation.
1emporal transition.
8ummary: discourse topic
Activities abandoned.

1
1he discourse (sub)topic battle is abandoned in 2.14 in a diegetic passage
with the subordinate clause cnci yc qv ciq(cv q _q (note the particle
combination yc (v, which is extremely rare in diegesis), belore a description ol the
battle-eld is given (neqv q OcoeoOei).
128 mlclll lLl}8
! Aspcctua| uijjcrcnccs

1he question that will be addressed in this paper is: how are the
aspectual dillerences in the parallel passages ol diegesis to be
accounted lor7 Ol course one may maintain that the distribution ol
aspectual lorms should be regarded as lree, that the alteration is
due to mere coincidence, and that the relevant lactors underlying
the dillerence in aspectual usage cannot be recovered by modern
linguists. ln my opinion, such an attitude is undesirable in that any
linguistic analysis would raise suspicion once mere chance is
considered a lactor to be reckoned with, especially when an
explanation seems available. lurther, the number ol passages in
both the Acsi|aus and the uc||cnica in which aspectual dillerences
are lound is too great to hold such a position. moreover, it cannot be
maintained that substituting one member ol the opposition aorist
indicativeJimperlect lor the other yields a change in the description
ol a given real-world situation, this would result in an undesirable
situation lor the passages in question, as in both texts the exact same
real-world situation is narrated in narrative passages.
lt will be clear that these questions cannot be answered on the
level ol the sentence. 1o answer them, we have to look in a dillerent
direction, cl. kijksbaron (1988: 20-24) on the discourse lunction ol
the imperlect in lerodotus. lt is the hypothesis ol this paper that a
text grammar-oriented approach will yield better results, cl.
kijksbaron:

8ince the imperlect characterizes the state ol allairs as not-
completed it creates a lramework within which other states ol allairs
may occur, while the aorist indicative characterizes the state ol allairs
as completed, as a mere event. 1his dillerence in value between
imperlect and aorist indicative is signilicant lor the way in which a
story is told. 1he imperlect creates a certain expectation on the part
ol the readerJhearer: what else happened7, the aorist indicative, on
the other hand, does not have this ellect: the state ol allairs has
simply occurred. 1hese values are applied in various ways.
16

my thesis is that Xenophon deliberately substituted the one
aspectual lorm lor the other, adapting the text ol the uc||cnica to his

16
kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 11).
encomiastic aim. uillerent lactors may underly this adaptation, as l
hope to show in the discussion ol individual instances. ln any case,
the appearance ol an imperlect, an aorist indicative, or, lor that
matter, a historic present will be explained by taking into account
the discourse-organizing lunction ol the aspectual lorm in question.

4 mpcrjcct vs. Acrist: (uis-)ccntinuity cj uisccursc 0nits

ln 8icking (1991 and 1996) it is argued that one ol the lactors
underlying the distribution ol aorists and imperlects in Ancient
oreek is the structure ol the narrative or other communication: we
olten nd a series ol actions expressed by an imperlect concluded by
an action in the aorist. An example ol this is [1]:

[1] Xenophon, uc||cnica, 1.1.18-20
ciciOcv c tp otcei cnicov oi AOqveioi cn luiiov. oi c
luiiqvo tuv lcionovvqoiuv ie 4eveou ciiinovtuv etqv
cc_ovto to AOqveiou Aiiiiq c cive eto0 ciooiv
qce ie _(ete noiie ieuv nee tuv luiiqvuv, ocv diio
ieiov cyeocvo cv tp noici encnicuocv c loiovvqoov.

lrom lroconnesus the Athenians sailed on the next day against
cyzicus. 1he cyzicenes, inasmuch as the leloponnesians and
lharnabazus had evacuated the city, admitted them. 1here Alcibiades
remained lor twenty days, and obtained a great deal ol money lrom
the cyzicenes, but without doing any lurther harm in the city, he
sailed back to lroconnesus.

1he attention ol the hearer is directed towards the sequel by the
imperlects cnicov and cc_ovto, as the narrative continues, the
aorist encnicuocv is the nal verbal action ol this narrative
sequence.
1
we may say that the aorist indicates completedness, as
long as this term is not applied to the vcrua| acticn, but to the
Jisccursc unit: note that the actions cnicov and cc_ovto may be said
to be complete(d) in themselves, and that they advance narrative
time, despite the lact that an imperlect is used.

1
lor the prepositions cni (alter the imperlect) and c (alter the aorist
indicative), see also parallel passage V.
1!0 mlclll lLl}8
1he imperlect, on the other hand, may rather be said to present
an action lrom within the diegetic world. lt gives the sign to be
continued, indicating that more inlormation will be conveyed. 1his
continuation may also relate to the verbal action itsell. lere is an
example:

[2] Xenophon, Acsi|aus, 2.22
ie ye cnc to cv O(ei tuv Aeiceioviuv ietcievov oi
cvevtioi, oqOuv e toutoi otetcuci cn te O(e. cuv c
enotctecucve ie encoteuucve dnevte, nce te luvo
iceie cpou tqv _uev c_i to0 dotcu, nec_uv ie cv nci(
ie eve te q _coOei Oqeioi, c ouioivto. cottcuoc c ie
t( cniovti ctci niiv cn O(e ie nce te iete 5iuiov
oteuuete ie tou cpuoc te ioine tq loiutie.

lor at another time the lacedaemonians in 1hebes were murdered
by their opponents he (sc. Agesilaus) made an expedition against
1hebes to relieve them. le lound the city protected on all sides by a
trench and a stockade, crossed the pass ol cynoscephalae, and laid
waste the country up to the city walls, ollering battle to the 1hebans
both on the plain and on the hills, il they chose to ght. le made
another expedition against 1hebes in the lollowing year: he crossed
the stockade and trenches at 8colus and laid waste the rest ol loeotia.

1he imperlect cpou is used where a discourse unit is continued. On
the level ol the verbal action laying waste, the nal sentence ol this
discourse unit completes the inlormation, as appears lrom the
lexical overlap cpou (tqv _uev c_i to0 dotcu) cpuoc (te
ioine tq loiutie). On the discourse level, this unit is completed by
the aorists cottcuoc and cpuoc, the two clauses are combined by
iei, operating under the scope ol c, which separates, and at the
same time links, the two sentences ol this discourse unit (8ee lakker
199!).
On an even higher discourse level, the continuation-indicating
potential ol the imperlect is seen when the verbal action expressed
by an imperlect is the nal action ol a narrative line that is
temporarily abandoned, to be picked up later on.
18
1his happens in
[!]:

18
cl. kijksbaron (1988: 24): on the level ol large-scale narrative units it
establishes cohesion between dillerent and, more specilically, distant parts ol a
given narrative, il, lor some reason or other, this is split up.
A8llc1LAl ullllklNcl8 ANu NAkkA1lVl 1lclNlQLl 1!1
[!] Xenophon, uc||cnica, !.4.29-4.1.1
o Ayqoiieo, uonc uqocv, cn tqv 4uyiev cnocucto. o
cvtoi 1iOeuotqncnci 1ioitqv tov Toiov c Tiie, o
_uoiov c ncvt(iovte tievte eyuiou, ie icicuci ncidoOei
niote te cyiote ievovte iovei toi nocotqiooiv cv tei
noicoiv c (tc noicov c(oiociv no Aeiceioviou. () iete cv
ov tqv Tiie te0t cn_Oq. o c Ayqoiieo cnc eiicto de
ctonu( c tqv to0 4eveou 4uyiev, tqv cv _uev ciec ie
cnoOci, noici c te cv i, te ciouoe noocievc.

Agesilaus continued the march to lhrygia on which he had set out.
Now 1ithraustessent 1imocrates the khodian to oreece he gave
him gold to the value ol lty talents ol silver, he bade him to
undertake, on receipt ol the surest pledges, to give this money to the
leaders in the various states on condition that they should make war
upon the lacedaemonians. () 1hese, then, were the events that took
place in oreece. As lor Agesilaus, upon his arriving, at the beginning
ol autumn, in lharnabazus province ol lhrygia, he laid the land
waste with re and sword and gained possession ol cities, some by
lorce, others by their voluntary surrender.

1he imperlect cnocucto at least creates the expectation that more
inlormation concerning Agesilaus march will be conveyed in the
sequel. Yet this does not happen immediately, the narrative line
concerning Agesilaus is lelt open-ended, and a new narrative line is
started with o cvtoi 1iOeuotq.
19
Alter about 6 pages Oc1, the
narrative line concerning what happened in oreece with the gold ol
1ithraustes is explicitly closed oll by a clause that summarizes the
preceding episode, and the account ol Agesilaus march is eventually
continued (note that the transition lrom the one thematic discourse
segment to the other is overtly marked by linguistic means, such as
ov, transitional cvc, a theme construction, and an cnci clause
introducing a new spatial setting).
1he use ol the imperlect in the case ol a continuous discourse
unit, whatever its length, and ol the aorist in the case ol completion
ol a discourse unit, indicating textual discontinuity, will be taken as
the starting point lor the discussion ol the aspectual dillerences in
six parallel passages in the uc||cnica and Acsi|aus. l cover all

19
1he particle cvtoi indicates that the readers expectation that the current
narrative line is continued, is denied, therewith, is cvtoi is used as a lL8l-particle
(see 8lings 199: 114-122, especially 120 on uc Jictc-lL8l).
1!2 mlclll lLl}8
instances where an imperlect is replaced with an aorist or vice versa,
moreover, one instance will be discussed where a historic present is
replaced with an aorist. l hope to show that Xenophon adapted his
text ol the uc||cnica to the specic needs ol the encomium, in which
the pieces ol diegesis perlorm the lunction ol an illustration ol
Agesilaus qualities.

ara||c| assac

Xenophon, uc||cnica, !.4.6- Xenophon, Acsi|aus, 1.10-12

6 cn toutoi qOcioi 1iooecvq
cv uooc toi ncOcioi no
etov 1inni ie ^ciuii ie
mcyiii( q qv n(civ eoiu tqv
c(vqv, cicivoi c evtuooev nc
Ayqoiiou 1iooecvci q qv te0te
nttovto eto0 cncuociv te
onov.
10 cv toivuv tp Aoi qc nutq
nd(i cycvcto. 1iooecvq cv
uoocv Ayqoii(, c oncioeito u
ciOoicv o nccic no eoiice
eyyciou, ien(coOei et(
ecOqvei etovoou te cv tp
Aoi noici Tiiqvie, Ayqoiieo
c evtuooc onove d(civ eoiu,
oiocvo tq n(cu tci
qve.
o cv q 1iooecvq d uoocv
cO ccuoeto evt ye to0
c(vqv c_civ ottcue noi nee
eoiicu no ( ci_c nooOcv
ctcncncto. Ayqoiieo c, ieinc
eoOevocvo te0te, u
cnccvc
20
tei onovei.
11 o cv q 1iooecvq d uoocv
cO ccuoeto evt ye to0
c(vqv nttciv ottcue noi
nee eoiicu no ( nooOcv ci_c
ctcncncto. Ayqoiieo c ieinc
eoOocvo te0te u cvccivc
tei onovei.

20
cnccvc : cvccvc cobet coll. Acs. 1.11, cnccivc l
c
N. l (lerizonianus
lugduno-latavus 6, s. XV. medii) and N (Neapolitanus XXll 1, s. XV.ui ccJici l
maximc ajnis cst: lude) belong to the ccJiccs Jctcricrcs.
A8llc1LAl ullllklNcl8 ANu NAkkA1lVl 1lclNlQLl 1!!
u c qou_iev tc ie o_oiqv c_uv
o Ayqoiieo icticv cv tp Tco(,
dtc ouvtcteeycvuv cv tei noicoi
tuv noiitciuv, ie otc
qoietie cti ooq, uonc cn
AOqveiuv, otc cie_ie, uonc
cn Auovou, dtc yiyvuoiovtc
nvtc tov Auoevov, noocicivto
et( e(io0vtc ienttcoOei
etov ne Ayqoiiou uv ccovto
12 co ov to0to nutov ieiov
oici ien(eoOei, ti
1iooecvqv cv cevioe
cnioiov dniotov ndoiv cnoiqocv,
ceutov evtcnici(e nutov cv
iou cnco0vte, cncite
ouvO(ie q cuocvov, nvte
cnoiqoc ie +iiqve ie eou
Oeo0vte ouvtiOcoOei ceut(, c ti
ouioito.
6 At these words 1issaphernes made
oath to the commissioners who
were sent to him, lerippidas,
uercylidas, and megillus, that in
very truth and without guile he
would negotiate the peace, and they
in turn made oath on behall ol
Agesilaus to 1issaphernes that in
very truth, given that he did this,
Agesilaus would steadlastly observe
the truce.
10 well, his rst act in Asia was the
lollowing. 1issaphernes made oath
to Agesilaus that il he arranged a
truce to last until the return ol the
messengers who were to be sent to
the ling, he would do his utmost to
obtain independence lor the oreek
cities in Asia, Agesilaus in turn made
oath that he would observe the
truce without guile he allowed
three months lor the transaction.
1he one, 1issaphernes, straightway
violated the oaths which he had
sworn, lor instead ol keeping peace
he sent to the ling lor a large army
in addition to that which he had
belore. As lor Agesilaus, though he
was aware ol this, he nevertheless
abided by the truce.
11 1he one, 1issaphernes,
straightway violated the oaths
which he had sworn, lor instead ol
arranging a peace he sent to the
ling lor a large army in addition to
that which he had belore. As lor
Agesilaus, though he was aware ol
this, he nevertheless abided by the
truce.
1!4 mlclll lLl}8
when Agesilaus spent time in
quiet and leisure at lphesus, since
the governments in the cities were
in a state ol conlusion it was no
longer democracy, as in the time ol
Athenian rule, nor decarchy, as in
the time ol lysander and since
the people all knew lysander, they
beset him with requests that he
should obtain lrom Agesilaus the
granting ol their petitions.
12 l think, therelore, that here we
have his rst noble achievement: by
showing up 1issaphernes as a
perjurer, he made him distrusted
everywhere, and, contrariwise, by
proving himsell to be a man ol his
word and true to his agreements, he
encouraged all, oreeks and
larbarians alike, to enter into an
agreement with him whenever he
wished it.

1he parallel passage describes 1issaphernes and Agesilaus reaction
to peace negotiations, the two statements being balanced by cvc.
ln both texts we have an aorist in the cv-member expressing
1issaphernes violation ol the oaths (ccuoeto), lollowed by a
backgrounded sentence with an imperlect, which is lormally marked
as elaborating on the preceding statement by y. ln this sentence
the Acsi|aus reads nttciv where the uc||cnica reads c_civ. 1he c-
member in the Acsi|aus dillers lrom that in the uc||cnica in that it
has an aorist participle and an aorist main verb instead ol a present
participle and an imperlect,
21
moreover, it has ccvu instead ol
cnicvu.
22

1hese dillerences can be accounted lor in terms ol narrative
technique. ln the uc||cnica, the section under consideration is part ol
an on-going narration. Although there is a thematic break (cl. u c
at the beginning ol !.4.),
2!
the diegesis continues, as the u-clause
makes the preceding statement where the imperlect is used a
starting-point lor what lollows by the repetition ol an idea expressed
in the preceding discourse, a device known as propositional overlap
by which discourse units are segmented and at the same time linked
(see 1hompson and longacre [198: 212], lakker [199!: 28]). ln the

21
with the better manuscripts, see the preceding lootnote.

22
Although cnicvu tivi is rare, it is attested, e.g. in X. occ. 14., tnc Ncw
1cstamcnt, and the ccrpus mcJiccrum 6racccrum.

2!
lor sentence-initially placed subclauses marking thematic discontinuity, see
luijs (200).
Acsi|aus, there are several indications that Xenophon adapted his
text ol the uc||cnica to the specic needs ol the encomium, in which
the piece ol diegesis perlorms the lunction ol an illustration. lirst,
we may note that uc||cnica !.4.-6, where we have a dialogue
between 1issaphernes and Agesilaus commissioners, and a more
direct citation ol the oaths with q (v, has been condensed lor this
purpose to what is said in Acsi|aus 1.10, where the antagonist is
Agesilaus himsell, ol course. 8econd, we have in the Acsi|aus
nttciv instead ol c_civ, and ccvu instead ol cnicvu, which
seem to intensily the contrast between the two protagonists to the
advantage ol Agesilaus, and therelore t the occasion ol an
encomium better. 1hird, the piece ol diegesis is lollowed by an
evaluative statement cl. the particle ov, which marks the
preceding as introductory (see 8icking [199!: 48], Van Ophuijsen
[199!: 91], lor the linguistic characteristics ol evaluation, see gure
!). 1he aorist cvccivc in the Acsi|aus, therelore, closes oll a
discourse unit, viz., a piece ol diegesis used lor special purposes. 1he
use ol the aorist instead ol the imperlect and ol the aorist participle
instead ol the present participle
24
indicates that the actions
expressed by the aorist are presented lrom the viewpoint ol the
writer ol the encomium, the imperlect and the present participle in
the uc||cnica, on the other hand, present the actions they descibe
lrom within the diegetic world.

24
compare the discussion ol ciniuvJcinioe by 8icking (1996: !-6) who,
lollowing an idea ol l.}. lakker, describes the distribution ol ciniuvJcinioe as
rellecting a dillerence in point ol view.
1!6 mlclll lLl}8
6 ara||c| assac

Xenophon, uc||cnica, !.4.11-1! Xenophon, Acsi|aus, 1.14-1
11 ci c toutou cO toi cv
otetiutei ne(yyciic ouoicu-
coOei u c otetciev, tei c
noicoiv c d evyiq qv
eiivcioOei otetcuocv( cn
leiev nocincv eyoev nee-
oicuciv. cncotciic c ie "uoi ie
Aoic0oi ie Tiiqonovtioi
ncnciv no ceutov c "coov
to ouotetcuoocvou.
14 ci c toutou cO toi cv
otetiutei ne(yyciic ouoicu-
coOei u c otetciev tei c
noicoiv c d evyiq qv
eiivcioOei otetcuocv( cn
leiev nocincv eyoev nee-
oicuciv. cncotciic c ie "uoi ie
Aoic0oi ie Tiiqonovtioi
ncnciv no etov c "coov to
ouotetcuoocvou.
12 o c 1iooecvq, ie ti
inniiov oi ci_cv o Ayqoiieo, q c
leie dinno qv, ie ti qycito
etov oyicoOei et( ie tqv
entqv, t( vti voioe cn tov
eto0 oiiov c leiev etov
o(ociv, to cv ncov dnev
icieocv cicioc, to inniiov c
to meivou nciov nciqyc,
2

voiuv iievo civei ietenetqoei
tp nn( to +iiqve, nv c te
uoinne eiicoOei.
1 o cv ov 1iooecvq, ie ti
inniiov oi ci_cv o Ayqoiieo, q c
leie dinno qv, ie ti qycito
etov oyicoOei et( ie tqv
entqv, t( vti voioe cn tov
eto0 oiiov c leiev o(ociv
etov, to cv ncov dnev icieocv
cicioc, to c inniiov c to
meivou nciov nci(yeyc,
voiuv iievo civei ietenetqoei
tp nn( to +iiqve nv c te
uoinne eiicoOei.
o Ayqoiieo evt to0 cn leiev
cvei cO tevevtie enootce
cn 4uyie cnocucto, ie t t cv
tp noci noici ietcotccto ie
ceiuv enoooi(toi neni(Oq
_(ete cievc.
16 o c Ayqoiieo evt to0 cn
leiev cvei cO evtiotce cn
4uyie cnocucto ie t tc cv tp
noci enevtuoe uvci eve-
ievuv qyc ie te noici
ietcotccto ie ceiuv
enoooi(tu neniqOq _(ete
ciec.

2
nciqyc m88 : nci(yeyc cobet, lude.
ie tov cv diiov _ovov eoeiu
icnocucto 1! o nou vto
êoiuiciou, noovto eto0 oi
innci qieuvov cn ioov tiv, u
nooicv ti tdnooOcv cq. iete
tu_qv c tive ie oi to0
4eveou innci oi nc TeOivqv
ie leyeiov tov voOov eciov,
vtc neooioi toi +iiqoi tov
eiOov, ncOcvtc no
4eveou qieuvov ie otoi cn
tov etov to0tov ioov.
1 otetqyiiov ov ie to0to
coici ien(eoOei, ti cnc
noico noc(Oq ie to c(enetdv
oiov tc ie iieiov c( cicivou
cycvcto, neie encci(c tov
1iooecvqv tp entp, oviu c
ie to iiou cvte0Oe co(c
nioutioei
11 1hen he straightway gave orders
to the soldiers to pack up lor a
campaign, and sent word to the
cities which had to be visited by
anyone who marched upon caria,
that they should make ready a
market. le also dispatched orders to
the lonians, Aeolians, and
lellespontines to send to him at
lphesus troops which should take
part in the campaign.
14 1hen he straightway gave orders
to the soldiers to pack up lor a
campaign, and sent word to the
cities which had to be visited by
anyone who marched upon caria,
that they should make ready a
market. le also dispatched orders to
the lonians, Aeolians, and
lellespontines to send to him at
lphesus troops which should take
part in the campaign.
1!8 mlclll lLl}8
12 And he, 1issaphernes, both
because Agesilaus had no cavalry
and caria was unsuited lor cavalry
, and because he believed that he
was angry with him on account ol
his treachery, he really thought that
he was going to march against his
own residence in caria, and
accordingly sent all his inlantry
across into that province and took
his cavalry round into the plain ol
the maeander, thinking that he was
strong enough to trample the
oreeks under loot with his
horsemen belore they should reach
the regions which were unt lor
cavalry. And he, Agesilaus, instead
ol proceeding against caria,
straightway turned in the opposite
direction and marched towards
lhrygia, and he subdued the cities
which he passed through on the
march, and, by lalling upon them
unexpectedly, obtained great
quantities ol booty.
1 Now the one, 1issaphernes, both
because Agesilaus had no cavalry
and caria was unsuited lor cavalry
, and because he believed that he
was angry with him on account ol
his treachery, he really thought that
he was going to march against his
own residence in caria, and
accordingly sent all his inlantry
across into that province and took
his cavalry round into the plain ol
the maeander, thinking that he was
strong enough to trample the
oreeks under loot with his
horsemen belore they should reach
the regions which were unt lor
cavalry. 16 1he other, Agesilaus,
instead ol proceeding against caria,
straightway turned round and
marched towards lhrygia, and he
picked up and led along with him
the contingents which met him on
the march, subdued the cities, and,
by lalling upon them unexpectedly,
obtained great quantities ol booty.
A8llc1LAl ullllklNcl8 ANu NAkkA1lVl 1lclNlQLl 1!9
And most ol the time he marched
through the country in salety, 1!
but when he was not lar lrom
uascyleium, his horsemen, who
went on ahead ol him, rode to the
top ol a hill so as to see what was in
lront. And by chance the horsemen
ol lharnabazus, under the
command ol khathines and lagaeus,
his bastard brother, just about equal
to the oreek cavalry in number, had
been sent out by lharnabazus and
likewise rode to the top ol this same
hill.
1 1his achievement also was
thought to be a prool ol sound
generalship, that when war was
declared and cozening in
consequence became righteous and
lair dealing, he showed
1issaphernes to be a child at
deception. lt was thought, too, that
he made shrewd use ol this occasion
to enrich his lriends.

1he passage quoted here is part ol Xenophons account ol Agesilaus
activities in Asia. 1wo main verbs in this section ol the Acsi|aus are
an aorist (nci(yeyc and ciec), whereas the corresponding passage
in the uc||cnica has imperlects (nciqyc the manuscript reading
and cievc). 1he decisive lactor seems to be that the two pieces ol
narrative are structured dillerently, according to the discourse type
in which they occur: uc||cnica !.4.12 is part ol an on-going narrative
sequence, while Acsi|aus 1.1-16 is a diegetic passage selected to
perlorm the lunction ol an example in an encomium.
ln this connection one should note the usage ol particles in the
two passages. ln uc||cnica !.4.12, twice a sentence is connected to the
preceding context by c, which marks each sentence as the next
independent step in the narrative, moreover, c marks the
discontinuity on the point ol a participant (o c 1iooecvqo
Ayqoiieo). ln Acsi|aus 1.1-16 we have cv ovc, the particle
combination must be analysed as cvc, balancing the two
sentences (and the two topics) and marking antithesis, while ov,
here, marks the whole section as being the part ol the narrative
example that is ol special importance lor the point the author
wanted to make: it is especially this part ol the narrative (viz.,
Agesilaus deceiving 1issaphernes) that is evaluated in 1.1.
140 mlclll lLl}8
ln the two texts we have two sentences: one about what
1issaphernes did, and one about what Agesilaus did. concentrating
on the main verbs, the sentence structure is the lollowing:
uc||cnica !.4.12:
o c 1iooecvq (cv) icieocv() nciqyc
o Ayqoiieo cnocucto
iei
(t) ietcotccto (iei) cievc
Acsi|aus l.1-16:
o cv ov 1iooecvq (cv) icieocv(c) nci(yeyc
o c Ayqoiieo cnocucto
iei
(tc) qyc (iei) ietcotccto (iei) ciec
ln the uc||cnica, the main verbs ol the sentence about 1issaphernes
are an aorist (icieocv) and an imperlect (nciqyc). 1he action
expressed in the cv-member is not related to other actions in the
sequel, whereas in the c-member the verbal constituent directs the
attention ol the hearer towards the sequel. Alter all, 1issaphernes
clearly expected to meet Agesilaus by leading round the cavalry into
the plain ol the maeander, because Agesilaus would have
encountered 1issaphernes cavalry rst, il he had proceeded against
caria, as appears lrom the participial clause voiuv iievo civei
ietenetqoei tp nn( to +iiqve, nv c te uoinne eiicoOei.
As such, the imperlect nciqyc perlorms a lunction within the
structure ol an on-going narrative. 1his narrative lunction is not
present in the Acsi|aus, where we have the aorist nci(yeyc. And so
the imperlect is not used here, as the diegetic passage is not an on-
going narrative (contrast o c 1iooecvqo Ayqoiieo), but an
antithesis ol two pericopes: o cv (ov) 1iooecvqo c
Ayqoiieo. 1he structure is imposed on the passage not by the
aspectual choice ol the verbal constituent, but by the particles
articulating an antithetical paragraph (see longacre [199: 122],
lakker [199!: !00]).
1he sentence about Agesilaus has its own internal structure: rst,
we have the imperlect (cn 4uyie) cnocucto, which creates a
certain expectation that more inlormation concerning this march
will be conveyed ( cl. the use ol cnicnocucto in example [!] above
and uc||cnica, 4.!.9, to be discussed below). 1his happens in the
lollowing sentence, the co-ordinator iei is used because the second
statement adds specicity to the rst one. ln the uc||cnica, two
imperlects co-ordinated by tciei are used, indicating continuity ol
the discourse unit. 1his discourse unit is in lact continued, as
appears lrom the subsequent sentence (!.4.12: ie tov cv diiov
_ovov eoeiu icnocucto), the co-ordinator is again iei. ln the
Agesilaus, where three main verbs are coordinated by tcieiiei in
the corresponding sentence, the nal verbal constituent is ciec,
used where the uc||cnica has cievc. 1his aorist closes ol a
discourse unit consisting ol a sequence ol actions expressed by
imperlects (cl. example [1] above), the next section is an evaluation
ol the narrative example (lor the linguistic characteristics ol
evaluation, see 1able !). 1he dillerence between enoooi(toi in
the uc||cnica and enoooi(tu in the Acsi|aus lurther brings out
the dillerence in localization ol the two passages.
26

ara||c| assac

Xenophon, uc||cnica, 4.!.8-10 Xenophon, Acsi|aus, 2.4-6
8 loiu_eo cvtoi o 4eoiio
inne_uv evcotcc tc ie
e_ocvo ov toi nc etov
enoOvpoici. u c to0t cycvcto,
uyq tuv Octteiuv c(eioie
yiyvctei uotc oi cv encOvpoiov
etuv, oi c ie qiioiovto. cotqoev
ov o nooOcv, nv cv t( ci
t( NeOeii( cycvovto.
4 loiu_eo cvtoi o 4eoiio
inne_uv evcotcc tc ie
e_ocvo ov toi e etov
enoOvpoici. u c to0to cycvcto,
uyq yiyvctei c(eioie uoO oi cv
encOvpoiov etuv, oi c ie uvtc
qiioiovto. cotqoev ov o
nooOcv nv ( cn t( ci t(
NeOeii( cycvovto.

26
1his was suggested to me by A. culioli at a meeting ol the rcupc Jc rccncrcnc
sur |aspcct cn rcc ancicn in laris, lrance.
142 mlclll lLl}8
9 ie totc cv q o Ayqoiieo
toneiov t cot(oeto cte(
levto ie NeOeiiou, ie eto0
ccivc, ie qocvo t( cy(, ti
to cyiotov ovo0vte cn
inniip cvcvii(ici ov ( eto
ouvcic(cv innii(. tp otcei
nciiuv te A_eie tq 4Oie
q tqv ioinqv ndoev ie iiie
cnocucto c_i no te
loiutuv ie.
ie totc cv q o Ayqoiieo
toneiov tc cot(oeto cte(
levto ie NeOeiiou ie eto0
ietccivc, ie qocvo t( cy(,
ti to cyiotov ovo0vte c
inniip cvcvii(ici ov ( eto
cq_ev(oeto innii(. tp otcei
nciiuv te A_eie tq 4Oie
q tqv ioinqv [qq] ndoev ie
iiie cnocuOq c te loiutuv
ie.
10 vto eto0 cn tp coip o
qiio qvociq co(c evqvei, ie
qyyciOq ti qttqcvoi cicv
Aeiceiovioi tp veue_i ie o
veue_o lcioevo tcOveiq.
6 cvte0Oe q evtitcteycvou
cuv Oqeiou, AOqveiou,
Ayciou-, loivOiou, Avidve,
loce ie Aoio eotcou,
ocv cciiqocv, eii ci to0
evco0 evtinectettc, Aeicei-
oviuv cv c_uv oev ie qiou,
tuv etoOcv ou_uv 4uice
ie '_ocviou ovou, to t diio
ottcue nc qyycto eto.
8 lolycharmus the lharsalian,
commander ol the cavalry did
indeed turn, and lell ghting,
together with those about him.
lereupon ensued a headlong ight
on the part ol the 1hessalians, so
that some ol them were killed and
others were captured. At any rate
they did not stop until they reached
mount Narthacium.
4 lolycharmus the lharsalian,
commander ol the cavalry did
indeed turn, and lell ghting,
together with those about him.
lereupon ensued a headlong ight
so that some ol them were killed
and others were captured alive. At
any rate they did not stop until they
reached mount Narthacium.
9 On that day Agesilaus set up a
trophy between lras and
Narthacium, and here he paused,
mightily pleased with his exploit, in
that he had deleated an enemy
inordinately proud ol his
horsemanship with the cavalry that
he had himsell gathered together.
On the lollowing day he crossed the
Achaean mountains ol lhthia and
marched on through a lriendly
country all the rest ol the way, even
to the borders ol loeotia.
On that day Agesilaus set up a
trophy between lras and
Narthacium, and here lor the
moment he paused, mightily
pleased with his exploit, in that he
had deleated an enemy inordinately
proud ol his horsemanship with the
cavalry that he had himsell created
together. On the lollowing day he
crossed the Achaean mountains ol
lhthia and marched on through a
lriendly country all the rest ol the
way, till he reached the borders ol
loeotia.
10 when he was at the entrance (to
loeotia), the sun seemed to appear
crescent-shaped, and word was
brought to him that the
lacedaemonians had been deleated
in the naval battle and the admiral,
leisander, had been killed.
6 lere he lound arrayed against him
the 1hebans, Athenians, Argives-,
corinthians, Aenianians, luboeans,
and both the locrian tribes, and did
not delay no, in lull view ol the
enemy, he drew up his army lor
battle, having a regiment and a hall
ol lacedaemonians, and ol the local
allies only the lhocians and
Orchomenians, in addition to the
army that he had brought with him.

1he passage quoted here is part ol Xenophons account ol Agesilaus
retreat lrom Asia, on his way home. lis march to the borders ol
loeotia is expressed by an imperlect (cnocucto) - c_i no in the
uc||cnica (he marchedto), whereas Xenophon used an aorist
(cnocuOq) - c when he copied this piece ol diegesis into the
Acsi|aus (he marcheduntil he reached).
ln diegesis, marching to creates a certain expectation on the part
ol the hearer that more inlormation will be conveyed, the imperlect
is a signal that this discourse-unit is continued (cl. example [!] and
passage ll above). ln uc||cnica 4.!.9 cnocucto c_i no is used at a
moment when the narrative line concerning Agesilaus march to
loeotia is abandoned, the genitive absolute construction vto
144 mlclll lLl}8
eto0 cn tp coip, occupying sentence-initial position in 4.!.10,
may be said to clear the ground lor a report ol what happened at
the entrance to loeotia. we learn that the sun seemed to appear
crescent shaped (a bad omen), that indeed word was brought to him
that the lacedaemonians had been deleated in a naval battle and
that leisander had been killed, and that it was also stated in what
way the battle had been lought, this report being subsequently given
in a y-clause by means ol the accusative with the inlinitive. Alter
this, we return to the main narrative line (4.!.1!: o ov Ayqoiieo),
we learn Agesilaus reaction to the bad news, belore an account is
given ol the lorces preparing lor battle (4.!.1: qoev oi cv
evtitcteycvoi t( Ayqoii( loiutoi, AOqveioi, Aycioi, loivOioi,
Avidvc, loci, Aoio eotcoi).
Ol course, the bad news is not mentioned in the encomium, and so
there is no need lor internal organization ol the narration,
Xenophon simply states that Agesilaus marched on until he reached
the borders ol loeotia, with an aorist verb (cnocuOq) and the
preposition c, because Agesilaus has to actually reach these
borders as the diegetic example continues there (cvte0Oe () with
the lorces preparing lor battle.

8 ara||c| assac \

20 totc cv ov, ie ye qv qq
oc, cinvonoiqocvoi cioi(Oq-
oev.
1 totc cv ov (ie ye qv qq
oc) ouvciiuoevtc to tuv
noiciuv vcio cou ieyyo
ccinvonoi(oevto ie cioi(Oqoev
21 n( c l0iiv tov noice_ov
neet(ei tc cicicuc to
ottcue ie toneiov oteoOei,
ie otcevo0oOei nvte t( Oc(
ie to eiqte nvte eiciv.
n( c l0iiv tov noice_ov
neet(ei tc cicicuoc to
ottcue ie toneiov oteoOei
ie otcevo0oOei nvte t( Oc(
ie to eiqte nvte eiciv.
ie oi cv te0t cnoiouv. 16 ie oi cv te0t cnoiouv
20 1hen as it was already late
they took dinner and lay down to
rest.
1 1hen as it was already late
they dragged the enemys dead
within their battle line, took dinner
and lay down to rest.
21 ln the morning, he (sc. Agesilaus)
gave orders that oylis, the
polemarch, should draw up the
army in line ol battle and set up a
trophy, that all should deck
themselves with garlands in honour
ol the god, and that all the ute-
players should play.
ln the morning, he (sc. Agesilaus)
gave orders that oylis, the
polemarch, should draw up the
army in line ol battle and set up a
trophy, that all should deck
themselves with garlands in honour
ol the god, and that all the ute-
players should play.
And they did these things. 16 And they did these things.

A lurther adaptation ol a piece ol historical narrative to Xenophons
encomiastic goal is seen in this example, viz., the replacement ol the
imperlect cicicuc with the aorist cicicuoc. whether the one
aspectual lorm or the other is used does not make any dillerence lor
the description ol the real-world situation. As it belongs to the
discourse-organizing potential ol the imperlect to relate the action
it expresses to other actions in the sequel, the imperlect is at its
place in the on-going narrative sequence ol the uc||cnica, as opposed
to the Acsi|aus, where Xenophon-the-encomiast, rather than with
telling a story, is concerned with illustrating Agesilaus qualities.
Alter all, it is Agesilaus, the subject ol the encomium, who gives the
order.

146 mlclll lLl}8
9 ara||c| assac \

Xenophon, uc||cnica, !.4.2!-24 Xenophon, Acsi|aus, 1.!1-!!
2! cvOe q o Ayqoiieo yiyvuoiuv
ti toi cv noicioi onu neciq
to ncov, et( c ocv enciq tuv
necoicueocvuv, ieiov qy(oeto
_qv ouvei, c uveito.
oeyieocvo ov tqv cv
ieyye cO qycv cn to
neetcteycvou innce, ci c tuv
oniituv cicicuoc te cie e qq
Ociv oooc etoi, toi c
nciteotei cinc o( qycioOei.
ne(yyciic c ie toi innc0oiv
ciiciv, u eto0 tc ie nevto
to0 otetcueto cnocvou.
!1 cvOe q o Ayqoiieo yiyvuoiuv
ti toi cv noicioi onu neciq
to ncov, et( c ocv enciq tuv
necoicueocvuv, ieiov qy(oeto
_qv ouvei, c uveito.
oeyieocvo ov tqv cv
ieyye cO qycv cn to
evtitcteycvou innce, ci c tuv
oniituv cicicuoc te cie e qq
Ociv oooc etoi, toi c
nciteotei cinc o(
qycioOeine(yyciic c ie toi
innc0oiv ciiciv, u eto0 tc ie
nevto to0 otetcueto cnocvou.

24 to cv q innce cc(evto oi
lcoei cnc de nvte te cive
neqv, cvciiivev, ie oi cv etuv
cO cv t( note( cncoov, oi
diioi ccuyov.
2
oi +iiqvc
cneioiouOo0vtc eio0oi ie to
otetoncov etuv. ie oi cv
nciteotei, uonc cio, c eneyqv
ctnovto o Ayqoiieo iuii(
nvte ie iiie ie noicie
ncicotetonccuoeto.
!2 to cv q innce cc(evto oi
eyeOo tuv lcouv cnciq c de
nvte te cive neqv cn etou,
cvciiivev, ie oi cv etuv cO
cv t( note( cncoov, oi c diioi
ccuyov. oi c +iiqvc cnocvoi
eio0oi ie to otetoncov etuv.
ie oi cv nciteote uonc cio
c eneyqv ctcnovto o c
Ayqoiieo c_uv iuii( nvte ie
iiie ie noicie
ncicotetonccuoeto.

2
1he Oc1 correctly reads ccuyov in the uc||cnica, without any critical remarks.
8chneider (Oxlord, 1819) reads cuyov in the uc||cnica. ln his edition ol the Acsi|aus
(Oxlord, 1812), 8chneider notes ccuyov weiske ex lellen. mutavit in cuyov,
lectore non monito, which proves that weiske also read cuyov in the uc||cnica.
8chneider himsell reads ccuyov in the Acsi|aus.
1he reading cuyov cannot be correct in the uc||cnica: it would mean that the
enemies escaped, which is strange in view ol the lact that the oreeks pursued them
(cneioiouOo0vtc). 1he reading ccuyov they lled must therelore be prelerred.
ie diie tc noiie _(ete ci(Oq,
d qc nicov ( co(iovte
tievte, ie ei iqioi c totc
ci(Oqoev, d Ayqoiieo c tqv
Tiie en(yeycv.
!! u qiouoc to noiciou
tettcoOei ie to etidoOei
eii(iou to0 ycycvqcvou, cO
qycv cn 5ci. ieici de cv
cieic ie cnoOci te nc to dotu,
de c ie iquyeti c(iou to
cv cicuOcie cocvou u no
oue_ov etov necivei c c tivc
tqv Aoiev ceutuv noio0vtei, no
to cicuOco0vte ieiivou-
cvou cv nioi necivei.
2! 1hen Agesilaus, aware that the
inlantry ol the enemy was not yet at
hand, while on his side none ol the
arms which had been made ready
was missing, deemed it a t time to
join battle il he could. 1hus, he
ollered sacrice, and at once led his
phalanx against the opposing line ol
horsemen, ordered the rst ten
year-classes ol the hoplites to run to
close quarters with the enemy, and
told the peltasts to lead the way at a
double-quick. le also sent word to
his cavalry to attack, in the
assurance that he and the whole
army were lollowing them.
!1 1hen Agesilaus, aware that the
inlantry ol the enemy was not yet at
hand, while on his side none ol the
arms which had been made ready
was missing, deemed it a t time to
join battle il he could. 1hus, he
ollered sacrice, and at once led his
phalanx against the opposing line ol
horsemen, ordered the rst ten
year-classes ol the hoplites to run to
close quarters with the enemy, and
told the peltasts to lead the way at a
double-quick. le also sent word to
his cavalry to attack, in the
assurance that he and the whole
army were lollowing them.
148 mlclll lLl}8
24 1he charge ol the cavalry was
met by the lersians: but as soon as
the lull weight ol the attack lell on
them, they gave way, and some ol
them were cut down immediately in
the river, while the rest lled. And
the oreeks, pursuing them, captured
their camp as well. And the peltasts,
as was natural, betook themselves to
plundering, but Agesilaus enclosed
the property ol all, lriends and loes
alike, within the circle ol his camp.
!2 1he charge ol the cavalry was
met by the ower ol the lersians:
but as soon as the lull weight ol the
attack lell on them, they gave way,
and some ol them were cut down
immediately in the river, while the
rest lled. And the oreeks lollowed
up their succes and captured their
camp. And the peltasts, as was
natural, betook themselves to
plundering, but Agesilaus drew the
lines ol his camp round so as to
enclose the property ol all, lriends
and loes alike.
And not only was much other
property captured, which letched
more than seventy talents, but it
was at this time that the camels also
were captured which Agesilaus
brought back with him to oreece.
!! On hearing that there was
conlusion among the enemy,
because everyone put the blame lor
what had happened on his
neighbour, he advanced lorthwith
on 8ardis. 1here he burned and
pillaged the suburbs, and meantime
issued a proclamation calling on
those who wanted lreedom to join
his standard, and challenging any
who claimed a right to Asia to seek a
decision between themselves and
the liberators by an appeal to arms.

lere, the situation is reversed. ln the uc||cnica we have an aorist
where the Acsi|aus reads an imperlect. 1he nal two sentences ol
the passage under consideration are connected with the preceding
sentence by iei, these sentences are balanced by cvc. ln my
opinion, the replacement ol ctnovto - c with ctcnovto - c in
the cv-member ellects a dillerent status ol the cv-member vis-a-
vis the c-member in the two texts.
Alter it has been mentioned that the oreeks captured the enemys
camp, two statements are made: we are inlormed about what the
peltasts did on the one hand, and about an activity ol Agesilaus on
the other. ln the uc||cnica, the two actions have simply been
recorded by an aorist, they are equally important in this text, as they
are actions ol war. ln the Acsi|aus, the cvc sequence has internal
structure: the cv-member ol the corresponding sentences is used as
a preliminary statement, hence the imperlect ctcnovto, creating
tension and suggesting questions about the c-member. A dillerent
structure is imposed on the passage not only by the aspectual lorms,
but also by the prepositions: cni, rather than c, creates a certain
expectation on the part ol the hearer that more inlormation will be
conveyed, as in cnicovcni vs. encnicuocv c in ex. [1], compare
also cnocucto c_i no vs. cnocuOq c in passage lll. ln the
encomium, the c-member, being a statement about Agesilaus, is the
important member lor his purpose, as Xenophon uses the narrative
passages
28
in this text as an illustration ol Agesilaus qualities as a
general. On a conative interpretation ol the imperlect ctcnovto in
the Acsi|aus, the act ol plundering by the peltast did not come about
by Agesilaus magnanimity. lither way, the use ol the imperlect
ctcnovto in the Acsi|aus instead ol aorist ctnovto should be
explained in terms ol the adaptation ol a piece ol historical narrative
to the purpose ol a narrative example in a dillerent genre: the
encomium.

28
Note that the historic present eio0oi is a sure sign that this is a narrative
passage.
10 mlclll lLl}8
10 ara||c| assac \

Xenophon, uc||cnica, !.4.2 Xenophon, Acsi|aus, 1.!4-!

2 tc etq q _q cycvcto,
1iooecvq cv 5coiv ctu_cv uv
uotc ptiuvto oi lcoei
nocooOei n eto0.
!4 cnc cvtoi oc evtc(pci,
ecu q to eno toutou
cotetcucto, to cv nooOcv
nooiuvciv +iiqve eveyieo-
cvou ouv tiucvou uv
iovto, to c e(io0vte ie te
tuv Ocuv tie ieno0oOei,
toutou noi(oe q evtiicnciv
toi +iiqoi uveoOei, ie tqv cv
tuv iiuv _uev eputov
nec_uv, tqv c tuv noiciuv
otu ienoucvo uotc cv uoiv
ctoiv nicov tuv cietov teivtuv
t( Oc( cv ^cioi citqv
enoO0oei.
yvo c ie eto o lcouv
eoiic 1iooecvqv etiov civei
to0 ieiu ccoOei te ceuto0,
1iOeuotqv ietence eno-
tcvci eto0 tqv icei(v.
! o cvtoi lcouv eoiicu,
voioe 1iooecvqv etiov civei
to0 ieiu ccoOei te ceuto0,
1iOeuotqv ietence en-
ctccv
29
eto0 tqv icei(v.
to0to c noi(oe o 1iOeuotq
ncnci no tov Ayqoiieov ncoci
icyovte D Ayqoiiec, o cv etio
tuv neytuv ie iv ie qiv
c_ci tqv iiqv eoiic c e(ioi oc
cv enoniciv oiec, te cv tp
Aoi noici etovoou ooe tov
e_eiov eoov et( enocciv.
cte c to0to te cv tuv euv
cti eOuotce cycvcto, te c
Ayqoiiou noi cucvcotce.
eno nvtuv ye tuv cOvuv
cncocuovto nc iiie, noiio c
ie eiotevto no etov,
ocyocvoi tq cicuOcie, uotc
oicti Tii(vuv ovov eiie ie
euv noiiuv qycuv qv o
Ayqoiieo.

29
enctccv : enoiontci (ls.-) Aristides, kn., 2.1!.
Xenophon, uc||cnica, !.4.2 Xenophon, Acsi|aus, 1.!4-!

2 when this battle took place,
1issaphernes chanced to be at
8ardis, so that the lersians charged
him with having betrayed them.
!4 As no one came out to oppose
him, he prosecuted the campaign
hencelorward in complete
condence, he beheld the oreeks,
compelled erstwhile to cringe, now
honoured by their oppressors, those
who arrogantly claimed lor
themselves the honours paid to the
gods, those people he caused to
shrink even lrom looking the oreeks
in the lace, rendered the country ol
his lriends inviolate, and stripped
the enemys country so thoroughly
that in two years he consecrated to
the god at uelphi more than two
hundred talents as tithe.
lurthermore, the lersian ling
himsell concluded that 1issaphernes
was responsible lor the bad turn in
his allairs, and accordingly sent
down 1ithraustes and beheaded
1issaphernes.
! lut the lersian ling believed
that 1issaphernes was responsible
lor the bad turn in his allairs, and
accordingly sent down 1ithraustes
and beheaded 1issaphernes.
laving done this, 1ithraustes sent
ambassadors to Agesilaus with this
message: Agesilaus, the man who
was responsible lor the trouble in
your eyes and ours has received his
punishment, and the ling deems it
tting that you should sail back
home, and that the cities in Asia,
retaining their independence,
should render him the ancient
tribute.
Alter this the outlook became still
more hopeless lor the barbarians,
while Agesilaus received large
accessions ol strength. lor all the
nations ol the empire sent
embassies seeking his lriendship,
and the desire lor lreedom caused
may to revolt to him, so that not ol
oreeks alone, but ol many
barbarians also Agesilaus was now
the leader.

ln the Acsi|aus, Xenophon has opted lor an aorist to express the
cutting oll the head ol 1issaphernes. ln the uc||cnica the same action
is reported, but there a historic present has been prelerred, in order
to make stand out the death ol one ol the main characters ol his
12 mlclll lLl}8
historical narrative.
!0
ln the Acsi|aus, such highlighting is uncalled
lor. 1he event is simply recorded, and so is the ellect ol this event
lor Agesilaus: cte c to0to te cv tuv euv cti eOuotce
cycvcto, te c Ayqoiiou noi cucvcotce, exemplied by a
lollowing y-clause. 1his example shows once more that the
aspectual usage may depend upon the discourse type it occurs in.

11 ccnc|usicn

ln this paper six passages that occur in both Xenophons uc||cnica
and Acsi|aus and diller, all other things being equal, in the aspectual
choice ol their verbal constituents, have been discussed. lt was
argued that these dillerences should not be regarded as due to mere
coincidence. moreover, it was claimed that any view on aspect by
which substituting one member ol the opposition aorist
indicativeJimperlect lor the other would yield a change in the
description ol a given real-world situation, lails to explain the
passages in question, as in both texts the exact same real-world
situation is narrated in narrative passages.
lt was argued that in an on-going narrative sequence, the
imperlect is the appropriate choice to relate the action it expresses
to other actions in the sequel. lt thus perlorms a lunction within the
structure ol an on-going narrative: the author may present an action
lrom within the diegetic world by using an imperlect, which olten
gives the sign to be continued, indicating that more inlormation
will be conveyed. 1he aorist, then, lacks this continuation-indicating
potential. whereas the imperlect indicates the continuation ol a
discourse unit, the aorist is olten used to close oll such a discourse

!0
Note that the alternative lor a historic present is, usually, an aorist indicative,
rather than an imperlect, although the historic present and the aorist indicative are
derived lrom a dillerent tense stem, compare (ls.-) Aristides, kn., 2.1!4 (quoting
Xenophon, Anauasis, 1.1.2): ie q to0 _ovou neeiieyq tq ecicie coti to ye
neciqiuOo c tov cvcotute oiovtei, oiov kcv r r:arrrr:at arc :p a_p
evt to0 ctcnceto o _ovo ye cteiqOc tqv eciciev cnoiqoc (tnc
a|tcrnaticn cj tcnsc is a|sc cnaractcristic cj simp|icity cj sty|c: cnc cxprcsscs a past acticn in
tnc prcscnt tcnsc as in uut cyrus nc summcns (historic present) jrcm tnc prcvincc instcaJ
cj nc summcncJ (aorist), it is tnc suustituticn cj tnc tcnsc tnat nas urcunt aucut tnc
simp|icity). lor a recent discussion ol the historic present, see 8icking 8tork
(199).
unit. we may perhaps say that the imperlect indicates non-
completeness and the aorist indicates completeness, but only as
long as this term is applied to the discourse unit in which it occurs.
ln order to account lor the aspectual dillerences, it is necessary to
realise that the two texts in which the corresponding passages occur
belong to dillerent discourse types. 1he uc||cnica is a historical
narrative, whereas the Acsi|aus is an encomium, in which the
narrative episodes copied lrom the uc||cnica perlorm the lunction ol
illustrations ol Agesilaus qualities as a general. my thesis was that
Xenophon deliberately substituted the one aspectual lorm lor the
other, adapting the text ol the uc||cnica to his encomiastic aim.
uillerent lactors may underly this adaptation, as l hope to have
shown in the discussion ol individual instances. All in all l would
claim that the aorist and imperlect will be regarded as devices used
to articulate the text. All passages discussed have in common that
the replacement ol the one alternative with the other yields a
dillerent communicative situation, and that the distribution ol
aspectual dillerences in the Acsi|aus and uc||cnica reects
Xenophons narrative technique.

clAl1lk llol1

lOllO8l1lON A8llc1Lllll lkl8lN1 AOkl81l
1

uAN8 lA okANul lOl ul oOk1YNl

}ean lallot

1 ntrcJucticn

cet article reprend en bonne partie le travail que javais ellectu il y
a un peu plus dun an pour un colloque qui sest tenu a 8aint-ltienne
et auquel je navais pas pu participer physiquement. les rsultats
auxquels jtais parvenu avaient t prsents par ma collgue
monique lile, prolesseur a metz et spcialiste de dialectologie
crtoise. 8i jai choisi de revenir sur ce sujet, cest moins parce que
mes interprtations se seraient signilicativement modilies depuis
lan dernier, que parce que, par un heureux hasard, mon corpus de
recherche comportait un passage problmatique dont le traitement
ma paru concorder (tant bien que mal) avec lorientation spcilique
qui a t dlinie pour le colloque organis en lhonneur dAlbert
kijksbaron, a qui il mest agrable de pouvoir tmoigner ainsi mon
amiti.
linscription crtoise communment appele la orande loi de
oortyne, grave au dbut du V
e
sicle av. }.-c., constitue un des
textes pigraphiques grecs les plus importants, tant par sa longueur
(environ 600 lignes de 2 caractres en moyenne sont conserves)
que par son contenu. lunit thmatique du texte, dune part, il
sagit de prescriptions de droit priv , et son ampleur, dautre part,
crent des conditions particulirement lavorables pour ltude
linguistique entre autres pour lobservation du lonctionnement de
laspect verbal. ln ellet, comme on va le voir, un bon nombre de

1
lour carter toute conlusion entre les dsignations des paraJimcs j|cxicnnc|s et
celles des aspccts vcruaux, jutiliserai systmatiquement, dans le prsent article, les
abrviations lk et AO pour dsigner les tncmcs aspcctuc|s, de prsent et daoriste
respectivement.
lkl8lN1 AOkl81l uAN8 lA okANul lOl ul oOk1YNl 1
verbes a caractre technique (ceux qui signilient ester en justice,
juger, condamner, payer une amende, donner, recevoir,
acheter, vendre, pouser, librer, laisser J recevoir (en
hritage), etc.) reviennent assez souvent, et dans des contextes
sullisamment varis, pour quil soit pertinent dobserver, de
comparer et dans certains cas, esprons-le dinterprter leurs
emplois, notamment aspectuels.
Yves uuhoux (2001), a livr les rsultats de comptages trs utiles
portant sur les verbes attests dans la orande loi. }en ai extrait
quelques chillres sur lesquels je ne mattarderai pas, mais qui
donnent une ide, si jose dire, du paysage verbal auquel nous avons
allaire. 8elon uuhoux, la loi de oortyne contient (sous rserve de
quelques incertitudes mineures):
2

664 lormes verbales, tires de
81 verbes dillrents.
cela donne dja une ide du taux moyen de rcurrence des lormes
dun mme verbe.
larmi les 81 verbes attests, 9 (!/) ne sont attests qua un seul
aspect
dont !9 (66/) au lk, 1 (29/) a lAO, ! (/) au ll1.
ll serait naturellement intressant dexaminer de prs la liste de
chacun de ces verbes et de se demander si on peut interprter leur
allinit avec lun ou lautre aspect, mais ce nest pas mon objet ici et
je ne my attarderai pas.
}e mintresserai au contraire aux quelque 2/ de verbes qui
donnent lieu a un choix aspectuel. lour allger mon expos, je ne
prendrai en compte que ceux qui sont attests au lk et a lAO (pour
certains aussi au ll1 et au lutur, mais je nen lerai pas ici une classe
a part). uaprs les relevs que nous avons ellectus avec monique
lile, il y a 22 verbes qui apparaissent dans la loi tantt au thme de
lk tantt au thme dAO (nous avons compt pour un seul les verbes
a suppltisme, mais, a la dillrence de uuhoux, rpertori comme

2
uuhoux parle en lait darchilemmes, et compte comme relevant dun seul et
mme archilemme toutes les lormes, simp|cs cu prcvcruccs, comportant un mme
radical lexical (les couples lk ei- J AO ci-, lk icy- ou uvc- [mais non -eyocu-J
AO cin-, uvc- J nie-] considrs comme suppltils, sont compts chacun comme
un seul archilemme). 8aul indication contraire de ma part, les chillres de uuhoux
que je citerai seront a interprter comme prsupposant ces dcisions.
16 }lAN lAllO1
verbes distincts les simples et les composs). Voici la liste de ces
verbes,
!
avec lindication du nombre doccurrences de chaque thme
aspectuel tous modes conlondus) et dune traduction lranaise
(indications ventuellement allectes dun 7, quand le chillre ou le
sens nest pas sr):

dyu (8) eyey- (1), se saisir de ou dtenir aprs saisie
eveicoei (en lait eveii-, ) evci- (1), hriter de
eveiuoei (en lait eiiu-, 1) eiiuo(e)- (!), racheter en versant une
ranon
eveeivoei (en lait eneiv-, 2) enev(e)- (1), adopter (un enlant)
7 eneyocuu (2) enocin(e)- (2) J enoqO- (1), parler (en public) J
renier une adoption
enoetcoei (1) enoett(e) (1), donner une part dhritage
enoiui (1) eno- (10), rendre, restituer
enoioei (1) eno- (), rendre, restituer
enoiey_vu (!) enoiei- (!), recevoir une part dhritage
etcoei (8) ett(e)- (1), partager
ieiey_vu (!) ieiei- (1), recevoir une part dhritage
iui (!) o- (9), donner
iiu (6 ou 7) iieio(e)- ( ou 67), dcider
ieOiotqi (1) ieteote- (1), payer
ieteiiu (1) ieteiieio(e)- (2), condamner
ietetiOcei (1) ieteOc- (), prendre, recevoir en hypothque
iivu (8) iiv(e)- (1), juger
iivoei (1) iiO- (1), se sparer (de son mari)
iey_vu (2) iei- (2), obtenir (sa part dhritage)
viiu (2) viieo(e)- (2), gagner en justice
vui (8) ooo(e)- (2), prter serment
ouvc(ttu (1) ouvcoo(e)- (1), prendre part a un dtournement

Quelques observations sur cette liste.
1. A lexception du premier (dyu dans son sens de dtenir
qqn), tous ces verbes sont de ceux que kuiprez aurait
appels translormatils, ou que dautres appelleraient
tliques. On est donc lond a considrer que, par leur
Akticnsart, ils ont une certaine allinit avec lAO dans sa
valeur perlective. 8il en est bien ainsi, on doit sattendre a

!
lour laciliter lidentilication des verbes, je les recense ici dans une version
atticise (en indiquant au besoin la lorme pigraphique correspondante). ln
revanche, dans les citaticns de la loi, je suivrai la graphie de ldition willetts (196).
devoir plus souvent se mettre en lrais pour justilier les
lormes daspect lk de ces verbes.
2. ln lait, si lon considre globalement les occurrences
correspondant a cette liste, on constate quelles reprsentent
69 (ou 0) lk contre 6 (ou 66) AO. le groupe comme tel ne
manileste donc pas dallinit particulire pour lAO.
!. 8i lon sintresse davantage au dtail, on observera que, si
quelques verbes ont une prlrence marque pour lAO
ainsi iui (lk ! J AO 9), enoiui (1 J 10), enoioei (1 J
), ietetiOcei (1 J ) , dautres au contraire apparaissent
beaucoup plus lrquemment au lk ainsi dyu (lk 8 J AO 1),
eveicoei ( J 1), etcoei (8 J 1), iivu (8 J 1), vui (8 J
2).
Ne pouvant examiner ici tous ces verbes avec leurs quelque 140
occurrences, jen slectionnerai quelques-uns dont les contextes
mont paru clairants pour avancer des hypothses sur les raisons
qui justilient lapparition des thmes de lk ou dAO respectivement.
Lne remarque pralable sur la phrasologie particulire de la loi.
le mieux pour illustrer cette phrasologie est de partir dun
exemple. }e cite en traduction lranaise
4
le dbut de la loi (l 2-12), en
donnant au passage les lormes verbales du grec:

[1] la loi de oortyne l.2-12
celui qui va plaider ( i(e) ciici evnioic
v) au sujet dun homme

libre ou dun esclave ne lemmnera (c
dycv) pas avant jugement. 8il

lemmne (e c i dyci), que (le juge) l e condamne
(ieteiieito ) a (payer) dix statres pour un homme libre et cinq
pour un esclave, pour le lait de lavoir emmen (ti dyci), et qu i l lui
enj oi gne de le relcher (iieito ieyei) dans les dix jours. 8il
ne le relche pas (e [c] ie c
[iey]ci), que (le juge) l e

condamne (ieteiiecto ) (a payer) pour un homme libre un
statre, pour un esclave une drachme, par jour de retard, jusqua ce
quil lait relch (niv ie ieyci). lour le calcul du temps, le juge
doi t statuer sous serment (ovuvte iivcv).

cet exemple, trs reprsentatil de la phrasologie de la loi, montre
que les verbes y apparaissent typiquement

4
1raduction uareste-laussoulier-keinach (189) modilie (dans le sens dune
plus grande littralit). les mots lranais entre parenthses nont pas de
correspondant littral en grec, ils sont ajouts pour des raisons de phrasologie
lranaise.
18 }lAN lAllO1
1. a une lorme injonctive: impratil ou inlinitil,
pour lnonc
de la prescription lgale, le contenu de la prescription,
quand il est exprim par un verbe, est a linlinitil
(dynamique),
2. au subjonctil ventuel, assez souvent aussi a loptatil,
6
dans
des subordonnes, relatives, conditionnelles ou temporelles
nonant les laits et circonstances donnant lieu a jugement.
lmpratil, subjonctil, optatil, inlinitil, il est clair que les lormes
verbales que prsente la loi sont massivement des lormes donnant
lieu a choix aspectuel. lnversement, le prsent de lindicatil, temps
sans concurrent vritable sur thme aoristique, est trs laiblement
reprsent dans le texte de la loi (6/ des lormes verbales selon
uuhoux).
Nous pouvons avantageusement commencer a raisonner sur les
exemples que nous ollrent les quelques lignes que nous venons de
citer.

2 cvv:a rivrv

ce syntagme a, dans la loi, le caractre dune vritable jcrmu|c, qui
ne sy rencontre pas moins de 6 lois.
ll sagit, a linlinitil prc

impcrativc,
8
de lnonc dune rgle de procdure celle de la
Jccisicn scus scrmcnt que les spcialistes du droit gortynien
opposent diamtralement a celle du jucmcnt, ou vcrJict, prononc
sans scrmcnt, mais en accord avec les dispositions spciliques crites
de la loi ou avec des tmoignages, toujours particuliers. ce deuxime
cas de ligure juridique est exprim par le verbe iiu (et son

la rpartition impratil inlinitil prc impcrativc a t tudie par oarcia

kamn (2001). la conclusion de lauteur est que les deux tours sont rigoureusement
synonymes et interchangeables dans la loi. mautorisant de cette conclusion, je
considrerai dans la prsente tude que lopposition lk-AO lonctionne cntrc ces
deux modes comme a |intcricur de chacun deux autrement dit que, par exemple,
iicv (en valeur imprative) soppose identiquement a iieito et a iiiei
(en valeur imprative).

6
On trouve aussi loptatil potentiel, ainsi que des tours au participe.

l 12, 1!-14, 2!-24, lll 1, Vl 4, Xl 29-!0.

8
ll laut ajouter une variante a limpratil, lk lui aussi, o [ii]ete ov
iivcto (lX 21).
compos ieteiiu), dont nous allons nous occuper un peu plus
loin.
lour ce qui est de la dcision sous serment, il me semble que
lexpression au lk doit pouvoir se justilier de deux laons
complmentaires.
1. uune part, la lormule nonce ccmmc tc||c une prcccJurc typc
(oppose a lautre), applicable de manire rcurrente dans
des cas multiples et divers (ici le calcul du temps, ailleurs
ltablissement des laits en litige) sans que le contenu de la
dcision soit jamais prcis, le lk, moins dtermin et moins
casuistique que lAO, semble adapt a ce genre de
prescription.
2. uautre part, je suggrerai (tout en tant conscient ici de
donner prise a une accusation de circularit) que |cxprcssicn
jcrmu|airc en tant que telle se conoit mieux au lk qua lAO
ce a cause de la gnralit mme de son application. ln
tout cas, le lait est quil ny a pas dans la loi de lormule a
lAO.
9

ce quil y a en revanche, cest une occurrence du syntagme ovuvte
iivei (V 4!).

! cvv:a rvat

On est dans un cas de litige successoral. 8il y a dsaccord entre des
hritiers sur le partage de certains biens, il revient au juge de juger
sous serment suivant les donnes de la cause: tov iietev ovuvte
iivei not te oiiocve . kapproch de Xl !0 o on lit, dans un
contexte trs parallle, tov iietev ovuvte iivcv not te
oiiocve, lAO de V 4! ne peut que nous laisser perplexes. Aucun
lment contextuel ne paraissant de nature a cxp|iucr le choix de
lAO iivei, nous nous contenterons simplement de constater que la
lormule au lk ne simpose pas mcaniquement. leut-tre lAO nest-

9
8i lon appelle lormule une association lrquemment atteste de plusieurs
mots sous lorme identique, on ne peut pas dire quil y ait beaucoup de lormules dans
la loi. 8agissant de tours verbaux, on pourrait citer e ie ii sil J elle veut (avec
un verbe iqv qui nest connu quau lk), attest 4 lois. lour un tour lormulaire avec
iiu (au lk !) voir la suite.
160 }lAN lAllO1
il pas rigoureusement synonyme du prsent (on envisagerait
davantage le cas), mais pourquoi ici, et comment en tre sr7 la
prudence me parat ici la meilleure attitude. malgr que nous en
ayons, nous devons savoir parlois nous rsigner, au moins
provisoirement, a ne pas tout expliquer.

4 (ra:a)trae

lxaminons maintenant, comme nous y invite le texte du dbut de la
loi que jai cit plus haut, les prescriptions relatives au prononc
dun verdict, les injonctions laisant intervenir les verbes iiu et
ieteiiu. Onze occurrences nous intressent ici: six sont au lk
(! impratils, ! inlinitils), quatre a lAO (2 impratils, 2 inlinitils).
Lne dernire occurrence lait problme, la pierre tant rase juste a
lendroit crucial o le lk se distingue de lAO, je ltudierai en
dernier.
commenons par le texte que nous connaissons dja (l 2-12, cit
plus haut en traduction), et qui a la gnrosit (ou la perlidie) de
nous prsenter a quelques lignes dintervalle limpratil AO, puis
limpratil lk de ieteiiu, avec en prime un iieito entre les
deux. les deux lormes ieteiieito et ietiiecto sinscrivent
dans des structures parallles: elles constituent lune et lautre le
prdicat central dune apodose conditionnelle dont la protase est au
subjonctil paradoxalement subjonctil lk (dyci) pour la premire,
subjonctil AO pour la seconde (ieyci), mais il peut se laire ici que
lAkticnsart des verbes dyciv saisir, mais aussi dtenir aprs saisie
(cl. ti dyci) et ieyei relcher inlluence le choix aspectuel: en
tout cas, ieyei est un AO tantum dans la loi, et le verbe dyciv ne
lournit quun AO (indicatil dyeyc en proposition temporelle, l 4)
pour six lk modaux (4 subjonctils, 2 inlinitils). leteiieito et
ieteiiecto sont construits identiquement avec un objet a
laccusatil, dsignant prcisment le contenu du verdict (en
loccurrence, le montant de lamende a payer). la seule dissymtrie
que jobserve entre la prescription a lAO ieteiieieto -
iieito et la suivante au lk ieteiiecto, rside en ce que,
outre leur ordre mme, la seconde prcsuppcsc une inlraction a la
premire. le schma nest donc pas

si A, alors l et si c, alors u,
mais
si A, alors l et si ncn-8 alors c.
}e suggrerai, sous bnlice de vrilication sil se trouve des
contextes parallles, que le lk en deuxime position a quelque chose
a voir avec le lait quon a allaire a un cncnaincmcnt procdural.
oardons cette hypothse en tte pour lexamen qui suit, o il sera
question des emplois injonctils (impratil et inlinitil) du simple
iiu (il ny a pas dautres exemples de ieteiiu en tour
injonctil que ceux qui ont t mentionns).
10

lxaminons dabord les occurrences de iiu a lAO.

4.1 trara:c, trarat

1. l : iieit ieyei, cest le texte que nous venons de
voir. }e suis port a considrer que, comme ieteiieit
auquel il est coordonn, cet AO reprsente, pour le verbe
tlique auquel nous avons allaire, la lorme normale de la
prescription de vcrJict, le cas o elle sapplique tant
mentionn sous la lorme e ie - subj., et le verdict lui-mme
tant prcis: ieyei.
2. On pourra vrilier quon a le mme cas de ligure en lll 6 et V
!1, o linlinitil AO iiiei, complt par un inlinitil
dynamique, nonce une prescription de verdict aprs une
protase a lventuel prcisant le cas dans lequel la
prescription sapplique la protase tant elle-mme a lAO
(lll 6 cievvc
ctei), saul quand son verbe est un de ceux qui

nont pas dAO (V !2 icivti).
!. l 2!: c ie viieOi o civ, to cv cicuOcov ieyei tdv
nc[v]t ecdv, tov c io[v] c iev enoocv. e c ie
c
ieyci c
enoi, iieit viiv t cv cicuOc

quand celui qui dtient (illgalement un homme) perd son
procs, (il doit), (sil dtient un) homme libre, le relcher
dans les cinq jours, (sil dtient un) esclave, le remettre entre
les mains (de son propritaire lgitime). 8il ne relche pas

10
8eule autre occurrence de ce verbe, le subjonctil AO dans une temporelle-
causale en q, l !4.
162 }lAN lAllO1
(lhomme libre), ni ne remet (lesclave), que le juge lui
inlli ge une amende (de tant) pour lhomme libre, etc.) .
}ai cit un peu longuement ce passage pour laire apparatre que
nous avons allaire a un ensemble du type rencontr plus haut, si A
(viieOi o civ), alors l (injonction: ieyei J enoocv), si non-l
(c
ieyci c
enoi), alors c (injonction iieit viiv). On

a donc, comme en l 11, un enchanement procdural, mais cette lois
linjonction c est aussi a lAO. On pourrait tre tent de sen tonner
et suggrer que, parallllement a notre ieteiiect de tout a
lheure, un lk iiect serait ici a sa place. ce serait sans doute
imprudent, car il y a une dillrence notable entre les deux passages:
dans celui que nous tudions maintenant, sil y a bien enchanement
procdural, le paralllisme est trs partiel entre les deux phrases
successives. la premire prescription (inlinitils injonctils) sadresse
au condamn, a qui il nest pas prescrit de juger (il ny a pas de
premier verbe iiu a linjonctil), mais de se soumettre a une
sentence, la deuxime prescription seule tant une injonction de
juger, adresse au juge et lormule a limpratil. changement de
destinataire, changement de verbe, changement de mode de
linjonction, cela nous loigne beaucoup de notre premier exemple
et nous amne opportunment a modilier linterprtation que javais
suggre de limpratil lk ieteiiect en deuxime position:
plutt que denchanement procdural, lormule trop exclusivement
rlrentielle, peut-tre vaudrait-il mieux envisager que, dans le
cadre rlrentiel dun enchanement procdural, ce soit |a rccurrcncc
Ju mcmc vcruc iiu, toutes choses gales dailleurs, qui induit le
choix de laspect lk, avec une valeur que je propose de qualilier,
dans un sens assez lche, d anaphorique.
11
8imple hypothse, qui
mriterait dtre soumise a vrilication.

11
ll y aurait peut-tre lieu de parler plutt ici deioiouOie, au sens quAntoine
culioli donne a ce mot, dans une note (indite) de 2002, consacre a limparlait en
grec ancien. }e cite : limparlait marque, dans ce cas, une relation que lon peut
caractriser comme suit: tant donn un 1
er
terme p, (une lois pos p, puisque..., ceci
tant le cas, etc.) cest-a-dire : ayant tabli lexistence de p, en tant quoccurrence
situe dune notion i| scnsuit un 2
nd
terme , dont (a) lexistence dcoule de
lexistence de p, et dont (b) la valeur notionnelle va-avec (accompagne) celle de p. ln
brel, p lraie le chemin a . }ai employ le mot grec, parce que imp|icaticn est trop
lort, cntraincmcnt (que jutilise) a besoin dun commentaire, tandis que akc|cutnia
(sans en conserver toute la teneur stocienne) marque la continuit qualitative, le
mouvement de passage vers une autre partie (V. ooldschmidt). On na pas allaire a

lkl8lN1 AOkl81l uAN8 lA okANul lOl ul oOk1YNl 16!
}en viens maintenant aux passages de iiu au lk.

4.2 trar:c

les trois impratils sont concentrs en lX !0, !8 et 0. (}e simplilie
le texte en ne gardant que le grec littralement pertinent et en
rsumant le reste.)

[2] la loi de oortyne lX.!0, !8, 0
... cniicv no t cvieut o c iiete iiect (!0) not te
enonviocve

(...) c i enocinovti, iiect (!8) ooev-te etov ie tov
eituev viiv to enioov. {vac.} u e i evcictei, e i o
netc
- o
i, etov etOei ie te i(ete dti ie ncnetei.

(...) iiect (0) not te enon[v]iocve.

(5i |unc Jcs partics Jans un jucmcnt ancicn crcant unc cu|iaticn pcur |c
pcrJant vicnt a mcurir,) lallaire sera porte en justice dans lanne.
Que l e j uge statue suivant les dclarations des tmoins)
(uispcsiticns ccnccrnant |iJcntitc Jcs tcmcins.) Aprs que les tmoins
auront lait leur dclaration, que (l e j uge) statue le paiement au
simple (a lhritier de la crance), celui-ci et les tmoins ayant prt
serment. (5i uc|uun scst astrcint a unc cu|iaticn jinancicrc ct nc ticnt
pas scs cnacmcnts, cn jcra appc| a tcmcins ct) que (l e j uge) statue
suivant les dclarations des tmoins.

}e dois tre assez prcis sur le problme juridique qui est trait ici. ll
sagit de la question de la ccnjirmaticn Jc va|iJitc Jun vcrJict ancicn
en particulier en cas de mort de lune des parties, et, dans ce cas, de
la transmissicn a un hritier dune obligation contracte
antrieurement par la personne dont il hrite. }e cite le commentaire
de uareste-laussoulier-keinach (189: 4 sq.): la loi consacre le
principe de cette transmission, mais, comme cela est ncessaire dans
une socit o lcriture nest pas dun usage courant, la
transmission constitue un vritable renouvellement [cest moi qui
souligne] qui doit se laire en justice. . la cl de la procdure est ici
lappel a la dposition de tmoins. la rgle de droit est alors que le

une relation logique, ni a une succession temporelle, mais a un lrayage dordre
notionnel, li a des reprsentations values dordre (inter)subjectil.
164 }lAN lAllO1
juge prcncncc sc|cn |cs Jcpcsiticns Jcs tcmcins: o c iiete iiect
not te enonviocve (not te enonviocve restant implicite en
!8).
On ne peut pas ne pas tre lrapp ici par le caractre jcrmu|airc de
lnonc a limpratil lk, qui ne prescrit pas un verdict, mais dlinit
le mode de procdure et le londement du prononc. le tour au lk est
en lait trs comparable a lautre lormule que nous connaissons:
ovuvte iivcv, et il est intressant de constater que les
commentateurs de ce passage (uareste-laussoulier-keinach (189:
4!)) rapprochent eux aussi, pour des raisons de contenu juridique,
et qui nont rien de grammatical, iicv not te enonviocve et
ovuvte iivcv (les procdures vises relveraient respectivement
de lordre du juJicium et de |aruitrium de lancien droit romain).
lormules procdurales donc, je pense que nous avons la une
justilication sullisante du recours a laspect lk.
cela ne doit pas nous empcher de nous demander si le rdacteur
de la loi a aussi t inlluenc ici par le lait que, dans ce cas
particulier, le jugement est en lait une conlirmation, mutatis
mutanJis, dun jugement antrieur, une prolongation de sa validit.
}e signale le problme en passant, puisque aprs tout nous ne savons
pas grand chose sur les potentialits connotatives du thme de lk, et
que ds lors toute hypothse tant soit peu plausible mrite
considration. cependant, je ne mengagerais pas trop rsolument
dans cette voie. ln ellet, sil y a bien ici, incontestablement,
enchanement procdural, les conditions |inuistiucs de lanaphore
(ou de leioiouOie, si lon prlre) ne sont pas runies: les impratils
lk sont autonomes et ne se rlrent a rien dexplicite dans le
contexte antrieur. kestons-en donc la, et passons aux trois
exemples de linlinitil injonctil iicv (l 20 et Xl 2 et 28).

4.! trarv

lci, les exemples comblent nos attentes, et sil nexistaient pas il
laudrait les inventer.

[!] la loi de oortyne l.20
ucsacccrJ cntrc Jcux partics a prcpcs Ju statut, |iurc cu scrvi|c, Junc
pcrscnnc. c juc, ui Jcit trancncr, a Jcux prcccJurcs a sa Jispcsiticn
e cv ie eitu enonvqi, iete tov eitue iicv, e c i c

evnotcoi enonvivti c
cetci, tov iietev ovuvte iivcv.


8il y a dposition dun (seul) tmoin, (le juge doit) prononcer en
suivant le tmoin, sil y a des tmoignages divergents, il (doit)
dci der sous serment.

[4] la loi de oortyne Xl.2 et 28
ci cnccrc Jcuu|c prcccJurc pcssiu|c, ct mcmc, scmu|c-t-i|, pcssiui|itc Jc
prcccJurc mixtc ()
tov iietv, ti cv iete eituev cyettei iicv (
eno
otov, iicv ei cyettei, tv eiiv ovuvte iivcv

not te iiocve.

le juge (doit), quand (7) la loi prescrit de prononcer selon les
tmoignages ou sous serment, prononcer selon la prescription
lgale, dans les autes cas dci der sous serment selon les dpositions.

Avec de lgres variantes dexpression qui sont peut-tre
simplement stylistiques (iete eituev J not te iiocve,
eno
otov J ovuvte), les deux modes de procdure londamentaux

sont juxtaposs, voire mixs, mais toujours au lk, pour notre plus
grande satislaction. (Noter que le iicv de Vll 2 dpend en lait
de cyettei: linlinitil dynamique dpendant dun tel verbe rvle en
quelque sorte la source contextuelle des inlinitils prc impcrativc
prsents dans le texte de la loi.)

4.4 trar:c cu trara:c

luisque je suis atteint dun accs dautosatislaction, allons jusquau
bout en examinant le dernier exemple dimpratil de iiu. ll sagit
du passage Vll 4, o la loi prcise minutieusement tout ce qui
touche au mariage de la lille hritire (patroque).

[] la loi de oortyne Vll.4
rcscripticns ccnccrnant |cu|iaticn jaitc a un ayant-Jrcit Jcpcuscr unc ji||c
ncriticrc
e c ie oc o
v o cniiiv c
iovev iciovev onuicOei c
ii
onuicv, icv to iectev to td netio
i, o c iiete[]
ii(lac. 4 lettres)t onuicv cv toi [u]oi qvi.

8i layant-droit, majeur, ne veut pas pouser la patroque, nubile et
consentant au mariage, les parents de la patroque (doivent) aller en
justice, quant au juge, qu i l prononce que le mariage ait lieu dans
les deux mois.

166 }lAN lAllO1
On a clairement allaire ici a une prescription du vcrJict, spcilique a
un cas dlini: on est exactement dans les conditions o, daprs ce
que nous avons observ prcdemment, limpratil AO est attendu.
Or il se trouve que, quand jai commenc a travailler sur ce texte,
javais sous les yeux ldition uareste-laussoulier-keinach (189) de
la loi, o on lit, pour la lorme mutile, le lk ii[ec]t, la
convention ditoriale (lormule p. !!) tant que sont places
entre crochets les lettres qui ne se lisent plus sur la pierre et dont
la restitution est certaine . kestitution certaine7 lien entendu, cette
certitude nest pas argumente: les questions de syntaxe, surtout
sil sagit de choix aspectuel, passionnent rarement les pigraphistes.
A examiner les choses de plus prs, en comparant dillrentes
ditions de la loi, on peut observer ce qui suit.
les premires ditions, pratiquement simultanes, sont celles de
lrnst labricius (188) et de uomenico comparetti (188, avec une 2
e

dition du mme savant en 1894). les lranais uareste-laussoulier-
keinach, qui ditent a leur tour le texte de la loi en 189, dclarent
expressment stre appuys sur les ditions de comparetti. lour le
passage qui nous occupe, on lit ellectivement le lk ii[ec]t chez
comparetti (qui, dans le lac-simile de linscription, indique une
lacune pure et simple de 4 lettres au milieu du mot). }e note que,
dans ldition de labricius, mieux inspire sur ce point a mon avis
que celle de comparetti, on lit la conjecture ii[e(]t. 5c jar sc ccJ,
mais ce ne sont toujours la que des conjectures pour combler une
lacune.
la suite de mon enqute ma videmment conduit aux deux grandes
ditions du XX
e
sicle, celles de margarita ouarducci (190) et de
konald l. willetts (196). la, surprise divine surprise!
ouarducci, puis willetts aprs (et daprs7) elle, impriment
ii[e]i []t, o les consonnes caractristiques de lAO nont
plus le statut dune pure conjecture, mais sont donnes comme une
interprtation possible de traces demeures sur la pierre. }ai essay
den savoir plus sur les donnes strictement pigraphiques, mais je
nai rien pu obtenir de dcisil: daprs lpigraphiste charalampos
lritzas (que je remercie davoir lait pour moi le voyage de oortyne),
la pierre est aujourdhui muette, et les estampages de ouarducci
conservs, je crois, a kome, me sont rests inaccessibles.

ccnc|usicn

Nous en sommes donc la. les choses tant ce quelles sont, je me
plais a croire que le tmoignage de ouarducci est liable. cette loi me
donne la satislaction de penser quun tmoignage pigraphique du
V
e
sicle avant }.-c. conlirme quelque peu lopinion que, comme
philologue et linguiste, je me suis laite sur le jeu de lopposition lk-
AO dans la loi de oortyne. modeste satislaction certes, mais plutt
rare dans notre prolession, et prcieuse a ce titre.

clAl1lk NlNl

lN1lN1lON8 ANu lL1Lkl klAll8A1lON8 lN llkOuO1L8

oerry c. wakker

1 ntrcJucticn
1

we all know, to quote the lamous line ol a song by uoris uay, that
the luture is not ours to see, and that whatever will be, will be.
Nevertheless we all speak, with more or less conlidence, about the
luture and about luture states ol allairs.
All grammars and handbooks on Ancient oreek agree that the
oreek luture is not the only expression ol the luture time. 1here are
other expressions as well. 1he question now arises what the
semantic andJor pragmatic dillerences are between these various
luture expressions. ln this paper l want to locus on the way the
luture expressions are used in lerodotus, in the hope that we will be
able to clarily passages in which at lirst sight the luture
expressions seem to be used without any clear semantic dillerence,
such as in:

[1] lerodotus 8.0.2
2

1he oreek were alraid, especially the leloponesians
eucov c, ti eto cv cv 5eieivi iet(cvoi nc yq tq
AOqveiuv veue_cciv ciioicv, viiqOcvtc tc cv v(o(
enoieOcvtc noiioi(oovtei, encvtc tqv cuutuv euieitov

1hey were alraid, because they were themselves stationed in 8alamis
and were about to light at sea on behall ol the land ol the Athenians,

1
my thanks are due to the participants ol the course 6rcck tcxt, |anuac, anJ
intcrprctaticn (lirst semester 200J2006) lor the valuable discussions we had about
the various luture expressions in oreek, to 8tphanie lakker and the participants ol
latwijk 200 lor their comments on an earlier version ol this paper and to drs.
monique 8wennenhuis, who swiltly and expertly corrected my lnglish.

2
my translations are adaptations ol the translation by A.u. oodley (19!8), which
is also published on www.perseus.tults.edu.
lN1lN1lON8 ANu lL1Lkl klAll8A1lON8 lN llkOuO1L8 169
and, in the event ol deleat, they would be trapped on an island and
besieged, leaving their own land unguarded.

or in [2] as compared to [!]:

[2] lerodotus 8.106.!
1he gods have delivered you into my power
uotc oc q ccoOei tqv eno cco toi coocvqv iiqv

8o that you cannot now complain ol the vengeance l will execute
upon you

[!] lerodotus .22!.4
.tc ye cniotcvoi tov ciiovt oi cocoOei Ovetov ci tuv
nciiovtuv to o

8ince they knew that they must die at the hands ol those who had
come around the mountain

2 r`è vs. tnc luturc 1cnsc

let us start by discussing the dillerence between ciiu - inlinitive
and the simple luture. On the basis ol previous studies and
descriptions
!
l claim the basic, semantic opposition between the two
expressions to be the lollowing: the luture expresses, in a lactual
way, that a 8tate ol Allairs
4
(hencelorth: 8oA) will be the case or will
be realised at some luture moment, whereas ciiu denotes a prcscnt
(or, in case ol cciiov, past) intention or arrangement lor the
(relatively) juturc realisation ol a 8oA. One could say, then, that
ciiu inherently has two semantic leatures: lirst, the modal leature
ol prcscnt intcnticn or arrancmcnt lor some luture realisation, second
the temporal leature ol the (relatively) juturc rca|isaticn itsell. ln
most cases it is precisely the element ol the present intention or

!
cl. especially lasset (199), lakker (2000), kijksbaron (2002
!
a: !4-n!), wakker
(2006). cl. also chantraine (196!: !0-9), uuhoux (2000: 161-!), oildersleeve ([1900]
1980: 94-, 118-20), ooodwin (1889: 20-1), lumbert (1960
!
: 14), lhner-oerth (1898-
1904: 1.1-9), magnien (1912: 99-119), 8chwyzer-uebrunner (190: l 811, ll 291, 29!),
8tahl (190: 14).

4
l use the term 8tate ol Allairs as an all-encompassing term covering the entity
to which the whole ol the predicate with its arguments relers, irrespective ol
whether this entity is an event, an action, a situation etc. cl. lyons (19: 44!).
10 olkkY c. wAlllk
arrangement that is the dominant semantic leature. Olten, as the
context indicates, the luture realisation is or can be interrupted,
postponed or even prevented. we lind such examples both with
ciiu and with cciiov, both with luture, present and aorist
inlinitive,
cl. [4]-[6]:

[4] lerodotus .8.1
A year alter uarius death Xerxes conquered lgypt and turned it over
to his brother.
c(q c cte Ayuntou diuoiv u cciic c _cie d(coOei to
ottcue to cn te AO(ve, ouiioyov cniiiqtov lcocuv tuv
eiotuv cnoiccto, ve yvue tc nuOqtei ocuv ie eto cv ndoi
cnp te Ocici.

Alter the conquest ol lgypt, when he was intending to take in hand
the expedition against Athens, Xerxes called a conlerence ol the
noblest among the lersians, to lind out their opinions and explain to
them his own wishes

[] lerodotus !.2.4, cl. !.2.
oi cv yc cuovtei totc cncv ti ciiuoi toioi cucoi ncioevtc
ic(ocoOei, oi eiqOiovtei ve ti tp eiqOciq cnionouvtei
ico iei ti diiov oi cnitnqtei.

men lie when they are to prolit by deception, and they tell the truth
in order to get something they want, and to be the better trusted lor
their honesty.

[6] lerodotus .10 e!, cl. 4.9.!
Artabanus addresses Xerxes: l warned your lather, uarius, not to
attack the 8cythians. le did not listen and lost many soldiers. 5 c, d
eoiic0, ciici cn dve otetcucoOei noiiov cti ecivove (
5iuOe.

lor lack ol space l will not discuss the question about the lactors determining
the choice between present, aorist and luture inlinitive. On a whole, l agree with
kuijghs description (198: !28): a present inlinitive denotes the immediate luture
(tc uc aucut tc, inceptive interpretation, e.g. ldt. !..1) or is continuative (ldt.
1.120.4), a luture inlinitive lacks the notion ol immediateness and denotes, in a
neutral way, am intcnJcJ tc, it is |ikc|y tnat wi||, an aorist inlinitive denotes, in a
marked way: cvcr, cnc unjcrcsccau|c Jay (ldt. 2.!9.!). One can say, then, that il a
speaker wants to express aspectual distinctions about the luture time, he has to use
ciiu with an inlinitive, rather than the simple luture tense, the latter lacking any
aspectual notion.
You, my lord, are about to lead your army against lar better men than
the 8cythians.

ln [4] the actual realisation ol the expedition is postponed by the
conlerence. ln the description ol human behaviour in [] it is said
that people lie when they have the expectation and intention to
prolit, but ol course it is only this expectation on the basis ol which
they act. 1hey do not yet know lor sure that they will indeed prolit.
lxample [6] is part ol the speech ol Artabanus, who, during the
conlerence concerning the expedition against the oreeks cl. [4] ,
wants to prevent the expedition. lor this reason he does not say you
will attack, but you are about to attack, explicitly leaving open the
possibility ol cancelling the whole expedition.
ln such cases, then, the locus ol the meaning ol ciiu is clearly
on its modal leature: the intention to do something, and ciiu
seems thus comparable to modal verbs like Ociu, ouioei and to
mental expressions such as cv v( c_u etc., rather than to the luture
indicative. compare []:

[] lerodotus .206.1-20, cl. also 9.98.4
cte c, lvcie y oi qv cnouv, cciiov otoevtc ie
uieie iinovtc cv tp 5ntp iete t_o oqOcciv nevqci. `
c ie oi ioino tuv ou_uv cvcvuvto ie eto tce toie0te
noi(ociv (...) Otoi cv q otu icvcvuvto noi(ociv.

At present the carneia was in their way, but they intended to
complete the lestival, to leave a garrison at 8parta and march out in
lull lorce with all speed. 1he rest ol the allies planned (cvcvuvto) to
do themselves likewise (...) 1hey proposed (icvcvuvto) to act in that
way.

lere cciiov seems to be used in more or less the same way as
cvcvuvto (they planned). loth verbs are resumed by icvcvuvto
(they proposed).
1he notion ol not realising or interrupting the intended 8oA can
be so strong that we even lind cciiov in contexts in which a
counterlactual might have been used as well, cl. [8]. lxample [8]
belongs to lerodotus argumentation that names such as leracles
came lrom lgypt to oreece, and not vicc vcrsa. le argues:

[8] lerodotus 2.4!.!
ie cv c yc ne Tii(vuv cieov ovo tco eiovo, toutuv oi
qiiote eiie iiote cciiov v(qv (civ.

12 olkkY c. wAlllk
Yet il they got the name ol any deity lrom the oreeks, ol these not
least but in particular would they preserve a recollection.

lowever, lerodotus goes on, the lgyptians do not preserve any
recollection, so they did not get the name ol any deity lrom the
oreeks. ln my opinion, cciiov v(qv (civ expresses the idea ol
past intention and expectation (they were to preserve), which,
however, is not realised, whereas a normal counterlactual ci_ov dv
would only locus on the counterlactuality, not on the previous
expectation. Note that in this example it is not the expectation ol the
subject, as in the previous examples, but ol the narrator that is
expressed.
1he simple luture, on the contrary, presents the realisation ol the
luture 8oA as a lact in the luture. Ol course, logically luture lacts
cannot exist, but a language user can present the luture as lactual.
Olten speakers seem to have (rhetorical) reasons to present the
luture course ol events as certain.
lirst, the luture is olten presented as certain when realisation is
controlled by the speaker, e.g.

[9] lerodotus 1.11.
ci to0 eto0 cv _uiou q oq cotei Ocv nc ie cicivo cc
cncc(eto yuv(v, nvucv( c q cni_ciqoi cotei.

1he attack will take place lrom the same place where he made you
view me naked and you will attack him in his sleep.

1he speaker is landaules wile, who gives instructions to oyges. lt is
their common project and the woman controls it. lor this reason she
uses the simple luture, which, in this case, strongly resembles an
order: you will attack him you must attack him.
8econd, the simple luture is olten used as a persuasive means by
presenting the positive or negative luture results ol some other 8oA
as certain. As such it lunctions as a strong incentive to do something
[10], or as a strong dissuasion [11].

cc ot(oucv qcuv etuv eoiice ie otu q tc _uq
cvo(octei ie eto no cye tcocOe oc n evoiq
evotetoi coocOe.

lN1lN1lON8 ANu lL1Lkl klAll8A1lON8 lN llkOuO1L8 1!
come, let us set up a king over us, and in this way the land will be well
governed, and we ourselves shall attend to our business and not be
routed by lawlessness.

ly conlidently summing up the positive results ol the appointment
ol a king, the speakers, the medes, enlorce their plea and proposal
ot(oucv qcuv etuv eoiice.

[11] lerodotus .14
c vuv to` oOi, qv nc q etiie otetqietcp, tc toi c( etuv
eveo_(oci u ie cye ie noiio cycvco cv oiiy( _ov(, otu
ie tencivo oniou iete t_o cocei .

lnow lor certain that, il you do not lead out your army immediately,
this will be the outcome ol it: as you became great and mighty in a
short time, so in a moment will you be brought low again.

1he dream tries to dissuade Xerxes lrom the expedition to oreece
and hopes to discourage him lrom leading the expedition by
summing up the awlul consequences it will have lor him, and, ol
course, the dream presents these consequences as certain lacts in
the luture.
Ol course, in cases like [10]-[11], it would be rhetorically less
ellective or even inellective il the speaker, by the use ol ciiu,
would explicitly indicate that only an intention or expectation ol a
luture realisation is concerned, and that it is inherently so that this
realisation may be interrupted, postponed or even prevented.
8umming up, in the above cases ol ciiu the locus ol the
meaning ol ciiu is on the present intention or expectation (either
ol the subject or ol the narrator), not on its other semantic leature,
the (relatively) luture realisation. lt is exactly this semantic
characteristic in which it dillers lrom the simple luture, which, in a
lactual manner, presents the luture realisation ol a 8oA as a lact.
ln some cases, however, l would claim that the locus ol the
meaning ol ciiu is primarily on the juturc realisation itsell, i.e. in
those cases where it expresses the relative luture (a notion that
cannot be expressed by the simple luture) and lills in the gap ol the
non-existing luture past indicative, subjunctive or optative and is
used to express the relative luture in past [4] , iterative [] or in
potential [12] situations.

14 olkkY c. wAlllk
[12] lerodotus !.2., cl. []
c c qcv ic(ocoOei ciioicv, ooiu dv tc eiqOiocvo
cuq cq ie o cuocvo eiqO(.

ll they were not to prolit, the truth-teller would be as ready to lie as
the liar to tell the truth.

ln all these cases, one could say, the locus ol the meaning ol ciiu is
not so much on the intention, but rather on the leature ol the
relative luture. lere there are no alternatives, and ciiu may be
characterised as a scmi-auxi|iary
e
cj tnc rc|ativc juturc. 8ometimes its
lull meaning is still discernible cl. [4], [] and [12] , but it may
also play only a minor role in the context in question, as in [1!],
where the actual realisation ol what the narrator expects to happen
is mentioned immediately alterwards.

[1!] lerodotus 8.86
8ince the lellenes, contrary to the barbarians, lought in an orderly
lashion,
cciic toio0to oi ouvoiocoOei oiov nc encq.

lt was likely to turn out as it did

ln all other cases ciiu is a more marked, modal expression, and,
hence, semantically dillers lrom the simple luture. 1his semantic
dillerence is olten the reason lor choosing ciiu instead ol the
simple luture.

! luturc xprcssicns in tnc 5amc 1ypc cj ccntcxt

let us now turn to some contexts in which it is very dillicult at
least at lirst sight to see in which respect ciiu and the simple
luture diller lrom each other, and also sometimes diller lrom other
expressions with luture relerence. l will distinguish ! types ol
contexts.

6
lor the arguments why ciiu is a semi-auxiliary rather than an auxiliary, see
wakker (2006).
!.1 ccntcxts cj luturc rcJicticns

oods, oracles, dreams sent by a god, and the like tend to use simple
lutures, when they predict the luture. 1hat is what one also expects
them to do, since they know the luture course ol events. One lamous
example may sullice to illustrate this.

[14] lerodotus 1.!.1
8uch was their inquiry.
tuv c evtqiuv eotcuv c tuuto ei yvuei ouvceov,
noicyouoei loio(, (v otetcuqtei cn lcoe, cyiqv e_(v iv
ieteiuociv

And the judgment given to croesus by each ol the two oracles was the
same: namely, that il he should send an army against the lersians he
would destroy a great empire.

men may lail to interpret such predictions correctly, but, ol course,
the entity predicting the luture exactly knows what will happen.

1his explains why in such contexts where in direct or indirect
speech the prediction is presented we generally lind luture tenses.
Nevertheless ciiu is lound 14 times (= 12 / ol the total number ol
examples ol ciiu) in seemingly the same type ol context. 1he
question rises whether we can explain this use ol ciiu.
8ince in the end the luture is always lixed (by the gods, or to use
more general terms, by late) and cannot be altered by men, the
meaning ol ciiu seems to shilt lrom l am intended to, l am to
(which inherently leaves room lor changes ol the luture course ol
events) to l am destined to, where the luture course ol events can
no longer be changed. As a reminiscence ol its basic meaning we see
this use ol ciiu in two types ol context where the idea ol trying to
change the luture course ol events seems to play a role.
ln the lirst place, some examples present the perception ol the
prediction by one ol the characters. Ol course, il the prediction is
unlavourable lor this person, he or she hopes that the luture course
ol events can be changed and olten perceives and interprets the
message in this manner (even il at that moment the luture course ol
events is already arranged and lixed), cl.

lor the lunction ol prophecies in the uistcrics see, lor instance, larrison (2000:
122-, 200!: 22-4) who mentions lurther literature.
16 olkkY c. wAlllk
[1] lerodotus 2.1!!.1
8

ciOciv oi evt(iov ci louto0 noiio u ciioi E( ctce o0vov
io t( co( tcicut(ociv.

An oracle came to him (= the king) lrom the city ol luto, announcing
that he had just six years to live and was to die in the seventh

1he king blamed the god that his lather and his uncle, though they
disregarded the gods, had lived lor a long time, but that he who was
pious was going to die so soon. 1he king made many lamps, lit these
at nightlall and drank and enjoyed himsell so that by turning night
into day he might make his six years into twelve and so prove the
oracle lalse. Ol course, he did not succeed.
ln the second place, we see this use ol ciiu olten in contexts
where a character will indeed try or has tried to change the luture
course ol events, but where this ellort will be or was in vain. 1here
are eight examples, one ol which is

[16] lerodotus 1.!4.1
9

etiie c oi covti cncotq vcio, oi tqv eiqOciqv ceivc tuv
ciiovtuv ycvcoOei ieiuv iete tov neie.

lmmediately when he slept he had a dream, which tried to show him
the truth ol the evil things which were going to happen concerning
his son.

1his passage already loretells the reader what is going to happen
and indicates that the evil things are inevitable and that this can
already be loreseen at that moment. lowever, the character in the
story, croesus, tries to save his son Atys, although the
readerJlistener already knows in advance that his ellorts will be in
vain (a case ol dramatic irony).
1he last example in the context ol predictions is remarkable in
that ciiu is coordinated with a (present) oblique optative:

[1] lerodotus 1.210.1
cyrus said this, thinking that uarius was plotting against him.
t( c o eiuv noceivc u eto cv tcicut(ociv eto0 teutp
ciioi, q c eoiiqiq eto0 nci_ucoi c êciov.

8
cl. 1.108.2, 1.18.1, 2.1!!.2, !.16.6.

9
cl. 1.4.2, !.6.!, !.6.4, 6.2.1, 6.98.1, .148.2, 8.6.6. ln [16] l interpret ceivc as
a conative imperlect. 1he same holds lor noceivc in [1].

lut in lact, heaven tried to show him that he himsell was (destined) to
die in the land where he was and that his kingdom was translerred
toJcame in succession to uarius.

lere again, the character thinks the luture can be altered, whereas
the reader is told in advance that this cannot be done. lere
tcicut(ociv ciioi is coordinated with nci_ucoi, a present
likelyhood or even destination coordinated with a present process ol
succession, a process that has already started and cannot be altered.
Note that in these contexts ciiu is either lound in indirect
speech (uttered by the oracle or dream [1], but not believed by the
character), or in the narrators text in situations where the
characters try to alter the luture [16]-[1], but where the reader is
told that this will not succeed. 1his is never the case when a luture
tense is used. luture tenses simply present the luture course ol
events (in direct or indirect speech). ln the contexts in question the
issue ol the changeability andJor the inevitability ol the luture is
simply not raised, cl. [18] with [16] above:

[18] lerodotus 1.!4.2
uirectly, as he slept, he had a dream, which tried to show him the
truth ol the evil things which were going to happen concerning his
son. (= ex. [16]). le had two sons, one ol whom was ruined, lor he was
mute, but the other, whose name was Atys, was by lar the best in
every way ol all ol his peers.
to0tov q dv tov "tuv oqeivci t( loio( o vcio u enoicci
iv e_p oiqcp iqOcvte.

1he dream showed this Atys to croesus, that he would lose him struck
and killed by a spear ol iron

while in [16] the perspective ol croesus is incorporated, in [18] only
the perspective ol the dream is presented, which knows the luture
lor sure. Note that the use ol the luture inJicativc (instead ol an
oblique optative) may also be interpreted as a sign that in this
respect the direct wording ol the dream is cited as closely as
possible.
10

10
cl. wakker (1994: 294-!02), kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 1-4) lor the dillerence
between tense and mood ol the direct speech and the oblique optative.
18 olkkY c. wAlllk
!.2 ccntcxt cj Anncunccmcnt cj wnat onc is 6cin tc 5ay mmcJiatc|y
AjtcrwarJs

when a speaker, either the narrator or one ol the characters, wants
to mark a transition in his speech and wants to announce a (slight)
change ol subject, about which he starts talking immediately
alterwards, we lind two dillerent expressions. c_oei with luture
participle and the luture indicative, cl. [19]-[21]:
11

[19] lerodotus 4.99.1-2
1hrace runs larther out into the sea than 8cythia, and 8cythia begins
where a bay is lormed in its coast, and the mouth ol the lster, lacing
southeast, is in that country.
to c eno "otou c_oei oqevcuv to no Oieooev etq, tq
5iuOiiq _uq c ctqoiv. eno "otou etq qq q- eiteiq
5iuOii( coti

Now l am going to describe the coast ol the true 8cythia lrom the
lster, and give its measurements. 1he ancient 8cythian land begins at
the lster

12

otoi ouvtiOccvoi oi otioi Ayuntou, to cv nee Oieooev qq
oi ie notcov c(iutei ti c(eiooiuv tc coti oteiuv ie
tio_iiiuv, oov c ti eno Oeiooq c cooyeiev c_i Oqcuv coti,
oqevcu otioi y coi ciooi ie cietov ie c(eiio_iiioi

1his, then, is a lull statement ol all the distances in lgypt: the
seaboard is lour hundred and lilty miles long, and l will now declare
the distance inland lrom the sea to 1hebes: it is seven hundred and
sixty-live miles.

[21] lerodotus 2.!.1
lt is sullicient to say this much concerning the Nile.
c_oei c nc Ayuntou qiuvcuv tov ioyov, ti niciote
Ouoie c_ci [( q diiq ndoe _uq] ie cye ioyou cu nec_ctei

11
we lind c_oei ccuvJouvJqiuvcuvJic(uv as well as ccu, ccocv,
ou, ic(u. kemarkably, ciiu (contrary to the situation in llato, see wakker
2006) is never lound in such contexts. 1here are also ! examples ol (ou, but these
are dillerent. 1hey never announce what the speaker is about to say but simply
introduce the dependent statement, e.g. ldt. !.1.4. 8ee also lrock (200!: 8-9).

12
cl. e.g. (with ou) 2.42.1, 2.14.1, 2.1.!, !.6.2, !.10!, .49., .6., .111.!,
8..1, (with oqevcu) 1.209.!, 2.9.2, !.!.2, 4.12.2, .4.1.
no ndoev diiqv- _uqv toutuv cvcie nicu nc etq
c(octei.

lut concerning lgypt, l am going to speak at length, because it has the
most wonders, and everywhere presents works beyond description,
therelore, l shall say the more concerning lgypt.

lt is dillicult to detect any semantic dillerences between the two
constructions, although originally they are semantically dillerent. As
ltoublon (1982) has convincingly shown, c_oei with a luture
participle ol a verb ol saying may be seen as a metaphoric
expression, the course ol speech being depicted as a journey. 1his
metaphor is used in all 12 examples ol this kind.
1!
1he verb lorm is
always a lirst person singular, and they all mark a change ol topic
and announce what the narratorJspeaker is presenting directly
alterwards. 1he expression may thus be said to explicitly indicate
the immediate luture. Only one example is slightly dillerent in that
it announces that the proposed change ol topic will nct be lurther
explored:

[22] lerodotus 1..!
1hese are the stories ol the lersians and the lhoenicians.
cyu c nc cv toutuv oi c_oei ccuv u otu ( diiu iu
te0te cycvcto, tov c oie eto nutov n(evte eiiuv cyuv c
to +iiqve, to0tov oq(ve no(ooei c to noou to0
ioyou

lor my part, l shall not say that this or that story is true, but l shall
identily the one who l mysell know did the oreeks unjust deeds, and
thus proceed with my history.

1he luture indicative (ou and the like) concerns the
announcement ol a luture lact: l will say. lt is not explicitly
indicated whether this will be realised in the immediate luture or
later on. Very olten, however, the announcement is immediately
lullilled and implies a change ol topic, as in [20] above. ln these cases

1!
ldt. 1..!, 1.194.1, 2.11.1, 2.!.1, 2.40.1, 2.99.1, !.6.1, !.80., 4.99.2, 6.109.4,
.49.!, .102.2. 8lightly dillerent are 4.82 and .62.1 where tov iet e_e qie ic(uv
ioyov relers to a story which the speaker wanted to tell, but had broken oll and
wants now to resume. lere qie marks that the speaker was going to speak about it,
but had not come thus lar. ln this respect qie resembles cciiov, which is, however,
never lound in such context combined with a vcruum JiccnJi.
180 olkkY c. wAlllk
the semantic dillerence with c_oei ccuvJouv seems to be
neutralised. cl. also [21], where c(octei repeats c_oei qiuvcuv,
apparently without any clear semantic dillerence. lowever, luture
indicatives are also lound in contexts in which the expression with
c_oei is never lound, since the notion ol immediateness
expressed by c_oei is not apt in the context in question, these are
contexts where the notion later on is evident, as cv dii( ioy( in
[2!] explicitly indicates. compare also [22], where no(ooei will
be realised only alter the identilication ol the person in question
(to0tov oq(ve). 1he same holds lor contexts where the expression
with the luture indicative concerns a kind ol characterization ol
what the narrator is going to tell, rather than an announcement ol
what he is going to tell, as in [24].

[2!] lerodotus 6.!9
14

o iv ie cv AO(vpoi cnoicuv c u o ouvciotc qOcv to0 neto
eto0 liuvo tov Ovetov, tov cyu cv dii( ioy( oqevcu u
cycvcto.

1hey had already treated him well at Athens, leigning that they had
not been accessory to the death ol cimon his lather, which l will
relate in another place.

1

to c toioi lcopoi tc qv oue_ov ie toioi 5iuOpoi evti(oov
cnitiOccvoioi t( êciou otetonc(, Oue cyiotov ccu, tuv
tc vuv q uvq ie tuv qiovuv to cio.

Very strange to say, what aided the lersians and thwarted the
8cythians in their attacks on uarius army was the braying ol the asses
and the appearance ol the mules.

!.! xprcssicns cj urpcsc cr ntcnticn

most luture participles are used predicatively with a purpose value,
16

going to do x generally implying with the purpose to do x, cl. [2].

14
cl e.g. (with ccu) 2.!8.2, (with ou) 2.1.1, 2.16.6, (with oqevcu) 1..1,
6.!9.1, ..1, .21!.!.

1
cl. e.g. 6.4!.1!, .104.1.

16
Notably in the context ol sending or going. Also when used attributively,
the luture participle may have this value, cl. e.g. kijksbaron (2002
!
a: 12-6).
8ometimes u is added to explicitly indicate that the purpose ol the
subject is expressed, cl. [26].

[2] lerodotus 4.8!.1
neeoicueocvou êciou cn to 5iuOe ie ncincnovto
eyyciou cnit(ovte toioi cv ncov otetov, toioi c vce
nec_civ, toioi c cuyvuvei tov Oqiiiov loonoov

while uarius was making preparations against the 8cythians, and
sending messengers to direct some to lurnish inlantry and some to
lurnish ships, and others again to bridge the 1hracian losporus
(Artabanus did not want him to make the expedition)

[26] lerodotus 9.18.1-2
lut when the horsemen had encircled the lhocians cn(ieuvov u
enoicovtc, ie q ictcivovto te cice u en(oovtc, iei iou
ti ie enqic ie o evtioi cotqoev, .... TvOe0te oi innotei
ncotcov ie en(ieuvov oniou. Oi c_u etcicu cnciv otc c
qiOov cv enoicovtc to 4uice cqOcvtuv Ocooeiuv, cnc c
uuv no eic(qoiv tenocvou, cioevtc q [ie] oioi ycvqtei
tue, otu q en(ieuvov oniou

1hey rode at them as il to slay them, and drew their bows as il to
shoot, it is likely too that some did in lact shoot. 1he lhocians
opposed them ... At this the horsemen wheeled about and rode back
and away. Now l cannot with exactness say whether they came at the
1hessalians desire to slay the lhocians, but when they saw the men
preparing to delend themselves, they leared lest they themselves
should suller some hurt, and so rode away

Note that the intention ol the horsemen to kill the lhocians is lirst
expressed lrom the perspective ol the horsemen themselves, but is
later mentioned by the narrator, without u.
1he question whether or not the purpose is realised is not
explicitly raised, and can only be answered on the basis ol
contextual inlormation, as in [26], where it is not realised, and as in
[2], where the purpose is not immediately realised, but alter some
intervening event.

1hen cleomenes sent most ol his army back to 8parta._iiiou c eto
ieuv to eiotce qic c to 1eiov Ououv. louiocvou c eto0
Ouciv cn to0 uo0 o ic enqyocuc, e oi oiov civei (civ(
etoOi Ouciv. c licocvq tov ice cicicuc to ciute eno to0
uo0 eneyeyovte eotiyuoei, ie eto cOuoc.
182 olkkY c. wAlllk

le himsell took a thousand ol the best warriors and went to the
temple ol lera to sacrilice. when he wished to sacrilice at the altar
the priest lorbade him, saying that it was not holy lor a stranger to
sacrilice there. cleomenes ordered the helots to carry the priest away
lrom the altar and whip him, and he perlormed himsell the sacrilice.

1he luture participle, one can say, is neutral as to the realisation ol
the purpose. mciiuv, which means, as argued above, with the
intention to, being intended to, about to, indicates more explicitly
that someones intention andJor expectation is involved. lence it is
never marked by u (the inlormation conveyed by u being
redundant) and it occurs most olten in contexts in which the 8oA
expressed by the inlinitive is intended, but not certain [28] or in
which it is put oll [29]:

[28] lerodotus 8.109.
te0te cicyc enoO(iqv ciiuv noi(ocoOei c tov lcoqv, ve, (v
de ti iv ieteievp no AOqveiuv nOo, c_p enooto(v t
nc dv ie cycvcto.

1his he said with intent to have something to his credit with the
lersian, so that he might have a place ol reluge il ever (as might
chance) he should suller anything at the hands ol the Athenians
and just that did in lact happen.

[29] lerodotus .2.!
1he prophetic voice that cleomenes heard accordingly had its
lullillment.
u ye evcq c tqv eionoiiv ciiuv q etqv ieteo_(ociv,
qic c to dutov tq Oco0 u nooccuv (but the priestess said it was
not lawlul that uorians should enter. le answered that he was an
Achaean.) o cv q tp iiqovi ocv _cucvo cnc_ciqoc tc ie
totc niiv c(cnintc cte tuv Aeiceioviuv.

lor when he went up to the acropolis clearly with the intention ol
taking possession ol it, he approached the shrine ol the goddess to
address himsell to her. (...) 8o without taking heed ol the omen, he
tried to do as he pleased and was, as l have said, then again cast out
together with his lacedaemonians.

Note that the lact that in [28] ciiuv is collocated (and not
coordinated) with a purpose-clause also indicates that there is a
semantic dillerence with pure purpose-expressions. ln [29] it is
dillicult to detect any clear semantic dillerence between ciiuv (
lN1lN1lON8 ANu lL1Lkl klAll8A1lON8 lN llkOuO1L8 18!
and u - luture participle, as in [26] (u enoicovtc) and [29] (u
noccuv).
8ince ciiuv seems to locus on the (presentJpast) intention and
expectation rather than on the actual realisation itsell, one may
wonder in which respect the ciiuv-examples diller lrom the
rather lrequent comparable examples ol ouiocvo (about 0
examples) and (c)Ociuv (about ! examples). ln my opinion, in most
examples ouiocvo willing, wishing, being willing implies a
(more or less conscious) choice or prelerence to do something and
(c)Ociuv willing, wishing olten implies consent or being prepared,
rather than prelerence or desire, as is shown by [!0]-[!1].
1

[!0] lerodotus .11.2
etcci c muiivov tqv 1uvuv, ouiocvo cv etp noiiv
itioei. oto cv q teutqv eicctei

le (listiaeus) asked lor myrcinus in the ldonian land because he
wished to build a city there. 1his, then, was his choice

[!1] lerodotus !.128.1
êcio cv te0te cnciute, tuv c dvc ti(iovte ncotqoev,
eto ieoto cOciuv noicciv te0te.

uarius asked this and thirty men ol them promised, each
wantingJbeing prepared to do it himsell.

1he notions ol choice or consent are clearly absent lrom the
meaning ol ciiuv, which in principle locuses on the intention or
expectation, as is shown by [28]-[29]. lowever, there are contexts in
which the locus is not prominently on choice, consent or
expectation. ln these contexts all three expressions may be used,
with only barely discernible dillerences in semantics:

[!2] lerodotus 1.86.2
evcieoc cn tqv nu(v, ouiocvo ccvei c ti iv eiovuv
uoctei to0 q uovte ieteieuOqvei.

le put him atop the pyre because he wished to know il some divinity
would deliver him lrom being burned alive.

1
cl. lor a more elaborate description ol both verbs ol wishing Allan (200!: 2!6-
4!).
184 olkkY c. wAlllk
[!!] lerodotus 2.!.1
ie q ie c O(e tc ie c 1iiou noiiv etuv toutuv cvcicv
ctenoqv, cOciuv ccvei c ou(oovtei toioi ioyoioi toioi cv
mci

l visited 1hebes and leliopolis, too, lor this very purpose, because l
wished to know il the people ol those places would tell me the same
story as the priests at memphis.

could the choice lor ouiocvo in [!2] and lor cOciuv in [!!] be
explained by the lact that in [!2] realisation depends on the gods,
whereas in [!!] it is controlled by the narrator, or is the semantic
dillerence more or less neutralised here7
compare also [2], where the luture participle Ououv is resumed
by ouiocvou c eto0 Ouciv, in a context where ciiovto
OuocivJOuciv seems lully appropriate, cl. e.g. lerodotus 4.4!.!.

4 rcu|cmatic cascs

lt is now time to return to the examples l started with. with all we
have seen in mind, can we now explain in which respect these
examples diller7 let us lirst study [1]:

[1] lerodotus 8.0.2
1he oreek were alraid, especially the leloponesians
eucov c, ti eto cv cv 5eieivi iet(cvoi nc yq tq
AOqveiuv veue_cciv ciioicv, viiqOcvtc tc cv v(o(
enoieOcvtc noiioi(oovtei, encvtc tqv cuutuv euieitov

1hey were alraid, because they were themselves stationed in 8alamis
and were about to light at sea on behall ol the land ol the Athenians,
and, in the event ol deleat, they would be trapped on an island and
besieged, leaving their own land unguarded.

1here are two dilliculties: what does it mean that an oblique optative
is coordinated with a luture indicative and what does it mean that
ciiu is coordinated with a simple luture7 l think the oblique
optative may be explained as an explicit sign that the thoughts ol
the leloponnesians are concerned. ciiu indicates that they expect
a light: they were aboutJwere to lightJit was likely that they would
light. Ol course they do not know it lor sure. lt is exactly this
expectation that makes them alraid. lowever, should they be
deleated during this possible light, it is a certain consequence that
they will be trapped on the island. 1his explains the use ol the luture
tense. 1he indicative, a sign that the direct wording ol the
leloponnesians is presented,
18
indicates that it is this 8oA they lear
most, more in any case than the possible sea light.
1here are two more or less comparable examples:

[!4] lerodotus 4.1!.2
ietciinc c tou tc vou ie to eoOcvce tq otetiq tuvc
cvcicv, ve oi cv voi oqv nec_uvtei oi c dvOunoi eoOcvciq
cv cvcicv ietcicinovto, nooio ` cn tqoc qie(, u eto
cv ov t( ieOe( to0 oteto0 cniO(ocoOei ciioi toioi
5iuOpoi, otoi c to otetoncov to0tov tov _ovov uoieto.

lis reasons lor leaving the asses, and the inlirm among his soldiers,
were the lollowing: the asses, so that they would bray, the men were
lelt because ol their inlirmity, but he pretended that he was to attack
the 8cythians with the lit part ol his army, while they guarded the
camp.

ln my opinion, uarius can only express his intention to attack the
8cythians, lor he is not certain that he will lind his enemy. On the
other hand he knows the inlirm soldiers will stay behind and will
continue to guard the camp (on his orders), which explains the use
ol the present tense. 1he other comparable example is [1], which
we have already discussed.
linally, let us compare [2] and [!]:

1he gods have delivered you into my power
uotc oc q ccoOei tqv eno cco toi coocvqv iiqv

8o that you cannot now complain ol the vengeance l will execute
upon you

[!] lerodotus . 22!.4
.tc ye cniotcvoi tov ciiovt oi cocoOei Ovetov ci tuv
nciiovtuv to o

8ince they knew that they must die at the hands ol those who had
come around the mountain

18
compare n. 10.
186 olkkY c. wAlllk
lxamples with an attributive participle ol ciiu, such as [!],
19

mostly occur in contexts ol late or predictions, just like [16] above.
lowever much the persons would perhaps like to change the luture
course ol events, it will not be possible, the luture course ol events
already being lixed. 1hus, in [!], death is inevitable.
1here is one other use ol the participle ol ciiu used
attributively:

[!] lerodotus 8.!.1
oi ye oue_oi oi ceoev, (v q o Aiuv qycovcup, AOqveioioi
coOei qycocvoioi, eiie iuociv to ciiov cocoOei ottcue.

lor the allies said that il the laconian were not their leader, they
would not be led by the Athenians, but would rather make an end ol
the lleet that was to be assembled.

lere ciiu is used to locus upon the possibility ol making an end to
the assembling ol the lleet.
1he luture participle in [2], on the other hand, does not allow lor
any interruption or breaking oll. lt is used in a threat: l will execute
vengeance upon you. Ol course it would be rhetorically inellective
to explicitly indicate that the luture is never certain, cl. [9]-[11]. All
other examples with an attributive, luture participle may be
explained along the same lines. luture participles, just like other
lorms ol the simple luture, present the luture as certain, either lor
rhetorical reasons [2] or because it is used in the neutral and clear
opposition past vs. luture:

[!6] lerodotus .9.1
tuv ycvocvuv lcocuv ..... tuv coocvuv

1he lersians that have been born and that will beJlive

ccnc|usicn

On the basis ol all examples discussed l would claim that all
expressions with luture relerence (luture participle and indicative,
ciiu, c_oei - participle, ouioei and cOciu) have their own

19
cl. 1.4, 6.98, .219.1, 8.6.2 (here the author interrupts his story to say what is
going to happen).
basic meaning, and that basically these meanings diller lrom each
other. lowever, there are contexts in which two or more ol these
expressions may be used. 8ometimes the basic meaning may still be
easily detected, sometimes, however, the semantic dillerence seems
minimal. 1he semantic dillerence seems to be neutralized or in any
case minimized in that case. 1his conclusion seems compatible with
the so called lrototype 1heory.
20
All in all, however, interpreting the
text in accordance with the basic meaning ol the expression in
question leads to a more relined interpretation ol the text. lvery
expression presents the luture course ol events in its own manner.

20
lor a clear and short description ol lrototype 1heory see, lor instance, lakker
(1988: 14-18).

clAl1lk 1lN

Au}lc1lVl OkulklNo lN llkOuO1L8: A lkAomA1lc lXllANA1lON

8tphanie }. lakker

1 ntrcJucticn
1

Nearly no one who reads or translates lerodotus will pay attention
to the order ol the adjectives in the lollowing two examples:

[1] lerodotus 1.2.2
evcOqic (...) oto c ^cio iqtq eyucov cyev ie
noiqtqiiov oi(cov ioiiqtov.

le made an ollering to uelphi ol a great silver bowl on a stand ol
welded iron.

2

ie cv t( tccvci ocio cotdoi cyioi iiOivoi

And in the precinct stand great stone obelisks.

1
1his paper was written as part ol the research project ueliniteness and
markedness in the Nl in classical oreek linanced by the uutch organization lor
scientilic research, NwO. l would like to express my gratitude to o. wakker and the
editors ol this volume lor their criticism ol and suggestions regarding an earlier
version ol this paper and 8. lerman lor the correction ol my lnglish.

2
ln this paper on the order ol the adjectives within the noun phrase (Nl), l will
not distinguish between continuous and discontinuous Nls. 1hat means that l
discuss the ordering ol the adjectives (and in section !, their position in relation to
the noun) irrespective ol whether and how many constituents ol the level ol the
sentence intervene. 1he reason lor this generalisation is that in my corpus the
ordering ol the adjectives and their position in relation to the noun does not seem
to be allected by these intervening elements. ly claiming that the order ol the Nl
elements is not allected by intervening elements, l do ol course not want to
suggest that discontinuity is meaningless. l do, however, doubt many ol the
conclusions on discontinuity arrived at by uevine and 8tephens (1999). 8ince they
examine the lactors that inlluence discontinuity without paying attention to the
lactors that determine the ordering in continuous Nls, their conclusions on the
ellects ol discontinuity are olten inlluenced more by the position ol the
constituents in relation to each other than by their discontinuity.
Au}lc1lVl OkulklNo lN llkOuO1L8 189
Lnjustly so, since there is a reason why the adjective cye in [1]
lollows eyucov, while it precedes iiOivoi in [2]. ln this paper, l will
discuss what determines the choice between the various possible
orderings ol two or more adjectives in one noun phrase, and l will
show that awareness ol the order ol adjectives will lead to a much
more precise interpretation ol the oreek text.

2 An ovcrvicw cj tnc itcraturc cn AJjcctivc orJcrin

lor Ancient oreek itsell, the order ol multiple adjectives has never
been analysed (the grammars only observe that everything is
possible). lor other lndo-luropean languages, however, adjective
ordering has been the subject ol some exploratory studies.
!
1he
general outcome ol these studies is that the order ol adjectives tends
to be rather lixed. 1he rcat si|vcr ucw| lrom the lirst example, lor
instance, is more likely to be translated with the (a) examples than
with the (b) examples:

[!a] a great silver bowl
[!b]
7
a silver great bowl
[4a] ein groer silberner mischkrug
[4b]
7
ein silberner groer mischkrug
[a] magna argentea cratera
[b]
7
argentea magna cratera

1he various studies do not agree what determines this rather lixed
order ol the adjectives. lugier and corbin (19) and 8eiler (198)
assume that adjective order is determined by the lunction ol the
adjectives. According to lugier and corbin (19), latin modiliers
are to be divided in identilying (Jctcrminativcs) and qualilying
modiliers (ua|ijicativcs). while the lormer modiliers help to
identily the relerent by specilying the relerence (e.g. pcpu|us
kcmanus, as opposed to pcpu|us A|uanus), the latter attribute a quality
to the head ol the Nl (e.g. ncrtus pu|cncr). lugier and corbin assume
that this dillerence in lunction is rellected in some syntactic

!
Among (many) others: lugier and corbin 19 (latin), letzron 198 (several
languages), kisselada 1984 (latin), 8eiler 198 (oerman), liber ct a|. 1999 (lnglish),
wulll 200! (lnglish) and uevine and 8tephens 2006 (latin).
190 81lllANll }. lAlllk
dillerences, lor instance, the lact that identilying modiliers are
expressed in the periphery ol the noun, while qualilying modiliers
may be expressed at greater distance lrom the noun:
4

[6a] populus komanus imperiosus
[6b] gentes Alricae vagae

8eiler (198) also supposes that the position ol a modilier depends on
its lunction, but he assumes a continuum lrom more nna|ts- to more
kcjcrcntzjcst|ccnJc modiliers instead ol a dichotomy between
qualilying and identilying modiliers. lesides, he assumes that in
oerman Nls, the relation between the lunction and the position ol
the modilier is exactly the other way round: the more a modilier
contributes to the identilication ol the relerence, the lurther lrom
the noun it has to be expressed, whereas the more it expresses
inherent properties ol the relerent, the closer to the noun it has to
be expressed. consequently, 8eiler concludes that adjectives
expressing material stand closer to the noun than those expressing
colour, evaluation, and allection:

[] allective adjectives - evaluative adjectives - colour adjectives -
material adjectives - N

whether we assume a dichotomy between identilying and classilying
adjectives or a continuum lrom identilying to classilying adjectives,
both approaches seem to ignore the lact that adjectives may and
olten will combine the two lunctions. 1he two identilying adjectives
in lugiers examples (examples 6a-b), lor instance, do not only
specily the relerence, but also provide qualilying inlormation.
A
second objection to 8eilers approach is that, while he states that the
position ol the modilier is determined by its lunction, he eventually
lormulates an adjective ordering on the basis ol their semantics. l
lail to see why material adjectives are by delinition less useless lor
the sake ol identilication than an allective or evaluating adjective,

4
ln his account ol adjective ordering in lnglish, lache (198) arrives at a similar
classilication ol adjective lunction. Yet, apart lrom identilying adjectives (which he
names classilying or mod lll), and qualilying adjectives (which he names
characterising or mod ll), lache also distinguishes delining adjectives (mod l),
which deline or specily the relerent (e.g. cwn, samc, many, usua|). 1he exact nature ol
this third category is not clear to me, as l lail to see the general characteristic ol
modiliers like cwn, samc, many and usua|.

1he same objections can be lound in kisselada (1984: 206).

since l can think ol several contexts in which a material or colour
adjective is much more kcjcrcntzjcst|ccnJ than an allective or
evaluative adjective (e.g. ccu|J ycu pass mc tnat |cvc|y rccn swcatcr
instcaJ cj tnat u|y u|uc cnc).
ly eventually lormulating a semantic order ol adjectives, 8eilers
approach bears some likeness to those ol letzron (198)
6
and
kisselada (1984)
, who argue that adjective order is determined by

semantics.
8
According to letzron and kisselada, the position ol
adjectives is determined by the objectivity or subjectivity ol the
qualities expressed. An adjective expresses a subjective quality il it
expresses an opinion or judgement, which may be disagreed with by
other people (e.g. allective and evaluating adjectives like JrcaJju|
and ucautiju|). Objective adjectives, on the other hand, express
qualities that are more a matter ol recognition instead ol opinion
(e.g. substance, origin, colour). letzron and kisselada suppose that
the more objective the quality expressed by the adjective, the closer
it is to the noun.
9
lence, they would explain the prelerence ol the (a)

6
letzron (198) bases his account ol adjective order on an unspecilied sample ol
genetically and culturally unrelated languages with a morphological class ol
adjectives, since the goal ol his research is to lind out whether there is a universally
prelerred order ol adjectives.

kisselada (1984) studies adjective order in latin. 1he main concern ol her paper
is not the order ol adjectives itsell, but the lactors that determine juxtaposition or
co-ordination ol adjectives (see section ).

8
lor a similar view, see Quirk ct a|. (192), martin (1969), losner (1986), liber ct
a|. (1999), wulll (200!) and uevine and 8tephens (2006). like letzron and kisselada,
Quirk ct a|. (192) and uevine and 8tephens (2006) assume the
subjectivityJobjectivity ol the adjectives to be the crucial lactor lor their ordering
(although uevine and 8tephens (2006) assume the extensionality or intensionality ol
the property expressed by the adjective to play a role, too). martin (1969) and
losner (1986), on the other hand, assume that the crucial lactor lor adjective
ordering is their (in)dependence on comparison (i.e. the degree in which
recognition ol the leature asks lor comparison with other objects). 1hey argue that
the less dependent on comparison, the nearer the adjective is placed to the noun.
liber ct a|. (1999) argue that (lnglish) adjectives expressing inherent leatures have
to stand closer to the noun than those expressing non-inherent leatures (e.g. a new
red ball). wulll (200!), linally, concludes on the basis ol a (very statistical) corpus
analysis that although many lactors allect adjective ordering, (in)dependence lrom
comparison, allective load and the subjectivityJobjectivity ol the adjective are most
inlluential.

9
loth letzron and kisselada warn that other lactors may also inlluence the
order ol the adjectives. kisselada (1984: 224) states that pragmatic lactors such as
emphasis, contrast or topicalisation may disturb the semantic ordering by moving
one ol the adjectives to the lirst position ol the Nl. letzron (198: 1-8) also

examples over the (b) examples in [!]-[] by the lact that silver is a
more objective quality than great.

! AJjcctivc orJcrin in Ancicnt 6rcck

Although a semantic analysis seems lruitlul lor the rather lixed
adjective orderings in many lndo-luropean languages,
10
my data
11

show that the much more llexible adjective ordering in oreek cannot
be determined by the semantics ol the adjectives. A clear counter-
indication is that semantically comparable adjectives olten occur in
alternating order:

[1] lerodotus 1.2.2

welded iron.

ie cv t( tccvci ocio cotdoi cyioi iiOivoi

And in the precinct stand great stone obelisks.

identilies idiomacy, euphony, causal relations, the interaction between the
semantics ol the noun and adjective and avoidance ol ambiguity as possible
disturbers ol the basic semantic ordering.

10
l doubt, however, whether latin adjectives are indeed ordered by their
semantics. Although 0/ ol the Nls in kisseladas corpus is ordered according to her
hypothesis, this does not necessarily imply that the semantics ol the adjectives is
the decisive lactor in adjective ordering. ln my own corpus, the greater part ol the
Nls is also in accordance with the semantic ordering principle. As l will delend
below, however, semantics does not play a role in adjective ordering in oreek. 1he
high number ol examples answering the semantic ordering principle will be due to
the lact that there is a rather strong correlation between the semantics ol an
adjective and its inlormativeness (which l will show below to be the decisive lactor
lor the ordering ol the adjectives in Ancient oreek).

11
lor this paper, l studied all Nls with two or more attributive adjectives in
lerodotus. 1he choice lor lerodotus is based on the lact that his work contains a lot
ol description, which is a necessary condition lor linding Nls with multiple
adjectives. Adjectives modilying proper names (e.g. ked lull, the llack 8ea) were
lelt out ol consideration, since they may have become a lixed expression no longer
obeying the normal noun phrase lormation rules.
Au}lc1lVl OkulklNo lN llkOuO1L8 19!
[8] lerodotus .64.1
litioi c nc cv tpoi iceipoi ey_ottu tuv mqiiuv c_ovtc
cotetcuovto, to(e c ieiive cni_uie ie e_e e_ce.

1he laktrians in the army wore a headgear very similar to the
median, carrying their native reed bows and short spears.

[9] lerodotus .6.1
lonioi c oiouve tc cvcuiotc ie to(e cni_ui e ieiive
c_ovtc ie eiivice cotetcuovto

1he laspians in the army wore cloaks and carried native reed bows
and short swords.

lxample [1] is in line with the semantic ordering principle ol
letzron and kisselada in that the rather subjective adjective cyev
lollows the more objective eyucov. ln example [2], on the other
hand, the subjective adjective cyioi precedes the more objective
iiOivoi. ln example [8] and [9], it is hard to decide which ol the two
adjectives provides the most objective inlormation. ll we lollow
letzron (198: 18-9) that material is more objective than
originJprovenance,
12
the order ol the adjectives in [8] does, but in [9]
does not conlirm the semantic ordering principle.
lt is worth noting that the counterexamples in [2] and [9] cannot be
explained by assuming that, lor some pragmatic reason, the lirst
adjective is moved lrom the basic semantic order to the lront ol the
Nl.
1!
loth cyioi in [2] and in cni_uie [9] do not provide
pragmatically marked inlormation. lut although pragmatics cannot
explain the improper position ol the lirst adjectives in [2] and [9], it
may explain the order ol the constituents in the Nl as a whole. my
data seem to suggest that the position ol the adjectives is dependent
on their inlormativeness: the more inlormative the adjective, the

12
ln letzrons opinion (198: 18-9), material is more objective than origin since
the latter requires more expertise or lactual knowledge than the lormer. kisselada
(1984: 216-), on the other hand, concludes, on the basis ol her data, that substance
is more subjective than provenance. 1his dillerence might be explained by the lact
that kisselada classes provenance under the category ol location, while letzron
distinguishes a separate category lor provenance.

1!
loth letzron and kisselada allow pragmatically marked adjectives to be
moved out ol their proper position in the Nl (see n. 9). lor a detailed account ol
the inlluence ol pragmatic lactors on word order within the latin Nl, see ue }ong
(198!).
lurther to the lelt it is expressed. 1he reason that eyucov in
example [1] is placed belore cyev is not that eyucov is more
objective than cyev, but that it contrasts the silver bowl with its
iron stand (it is a great si|vcr bowl). ln [2], on the other hand, the
size ol the obelisks is more inlormative than their substance, since
stone is the usual material lor obelisks. 1his is the reason why
cyioi precedes iiOivoi (they are nuc stone obelisks instead ol
huge stcnc obelisks). 1he alternating order ol the adjectives in [8]
and [9] can also be explained by their inlormativeness: example [8] is
the lirst mention ol a nation equipped with reed bows in Xerxes
army. 8o, in this example, the adjective ieiive is more
inlormative than cni_uie. ln example [9], on the other hand, the
existence ol reed bows is lamiliar because ol the preceding examples
ol nations with similar equipment (among which my example [8]).
consequently, the lact that the laspians have their own type ol reed
bows is more inlormative than that their bows are reed.
8ince examples like [1], [2], [8] and [9] prove that semantic lactors
do not play a role in adjective ordering in the oreek Nl,
distinguishing more basic adjectives like eyeOo, cye and _uoco
and more peripheral adjectives like nd, tooo0to and diio is
useless. Adjectives like the latter are peripheral in that they
despite similarities in lorm and behaviour have a dillerent
lunction than more basic adjectives, as they do not provide
inlormation on a quality ol the relerent, but on its quantity (oci,
noiu, nd) or its identilication (diio, tco, ioino).
14
As the
examples [10] and [11] show, their position is as much a matter ol
pragmatics as the position ol more basic adjectives:

o c À(q icyctei ie cuv ie cioouv civei to0 lotou.
v(oou c cv et( Aco( cyOce neeniqoie ou_v eoi
civei.

1he Araxes is said by some to be greater and by some to be less than
the lster. lt is reported that there are many islands in it as big as
lesbos.

14
lor a classilication ol these peripheral adjectives in latin, see lugier and
corbin (19) and kisselada (1984).
[11] lerodotus 9.
toutou to0 (ou cuv o 5uvq ie eiotcuoe totc ÀOqveiuv
i(o ioyou icyocvou c_ci (...) coti c ie tcov 5uvc
ienov cyov c(cyeocvov, tc ...

lrom that town was 8ophanes, who now was the best Athenian lighter
in the battle, and about him two tales are told. (...) 1here is yet
another glorious deed that 8ophanes did, when ...

ln example [10], the adjectival phrase Aco( cyOce neeniqoie is
expressed belore ou_v since it is more inlormative than ou_v.
1he river Araxis was not lamous lor its many islands, but lor the lact
that these islands had such an immense size (lesbos was by lar the
biggest ol the lonian islands).
1
ln example [11], the scope particle
iei conlirms my hypothesis that tcov is more inlormative than
the lollowing ienov.
16

4 1nc csiticn cj tnc AJjcctivcs in kc|aticn tc tnc Ncun

1he examples discussed above showed that in Nls with multiple
adjectives, the most inlormative adjective, whether prototypical or
peripheral, is expressed lirst. lowever, not only the order ol the
adjectives themselves but also their position in relation to the noun
is determined by their inlormation value. As l. uik (199) argued,
the position ol a single adjective in relation to the noun depends on
its pragmatic marking: an adjective that is contrastive or otherwise
the most inlormative element ol the Nl precedes the noun (example
12 and 1!), otherwise it lollows it (example 14 and 1):

cveutiiiovto c o otoyyuipoi vquo eiie ncvtqiovtcoioi.

1hey do not sail in round lreightships but in lilty-oared vessels.

1
1he lact that the rather heavy adjectival phrase Aco( cyOce neeniqoie
precedes the less inlormative ou_v shows that the heaviness ol the adjectives,
though inlluential in the case ol co-ordinated adjectives, does not play a decisive
role in the position ol juxtaposed adjectives.

16
On iei as a scope particle, see wakker (1994: !29).
[1!] lerodotus 1.12.1
oc noucov tc cie ncieiocvo, u dv nuvOevocvoi
niciotoi ouvciOoicv 5netiqtcuv, ie ieteote cicyc noiie
tiucciv cuutoioi _qiuv.

le then put on a purple cloak, so that as many 8partans as possible
might assemble to hear him, and stood up and made a long speech
asking aid lor his people.

[14] lerodotus .6
`lvo c cete cv cvcuiotc eno (uiuv ncnoiqcve, to(e c
ieiive ci_ov ie ooto ieieivou

1he lndians wore garments ol tree-wool, and carried reed bows and
reed arrows.

icyouoi ÀOqveioi iv cyev uieie tq eionoiio cvieitdoOei
cv t( i(

1he Athenians say that a great snake lives in the sacred precinct
guarding the acropolis.

ln example [12], otoyyuipoi contrasts with the lollowing
ncvtqiovtcoioi and lor that reason the adjective precedes the
noun. ln example [1!], the adjective also precedes the noun, not
because it is contrastive, but because it gives expression to the most
inlormative element ol the Nl: lerodotus inlorms us that
lythermos wore a purp|c cloak, as to attract the attention ol as many
8partans as possible. ln example [14], it is the nouns that are
contrastive and therelore the lirst element ol the Nl. ln example
[1], linally, the noun-adjective order is used since both the noun
and the adjective lack a special pragmatic marking (the postposition
ol the adjective being the delault situation).
uiks hypothesis that the order ol noun and adjective is
dependent on their pragmatic marking also turns out to be valid lor
Nls with multiple adjectives. ln both example [16] and [1] the
adjectives precede the noun since they are more inlormative than
the lollowing noun:

[16] lerodotus 1.1!
yecouoi c ieoto etuv noiie cv iouiie yuveiie,
noii( cti nicove neiieie ituvtei.

lvery lersian marries many lawlul wives, and keeps still more
concubines.

(lerodotus gives a description ol the twelve lonian and twelve Aiolian
cities)
etei cv vuv ei qnciutic Aoiic noiic, c(u tuv cv tp
lp oiqcvuv ic_uietei ye etei. ei c te v(oou c_ouoei
ncvtc cv noiic tqv Acoov vcovtei.

1hese then are the Aiolian cities on the mainland, besides those that
are situated on lda and are separate. Among those on the islands, live
divide lesbos among them.

ln example [16], the adjectives noiie and iouiie are more
inlormative than the noun since they contrast the large number ol
lawlul women with the even larger (noii( cti) number ol
concubines. ln example [1], the adjectives are also preposed
because ol their contrastive value, though the contrast is somewhat
less obvious in this case: qnciutic contrasts with ei te v(oou
_ouoei and Aoiic with the previously mentioned lonian cities. ln
both examples, the lirst adjective precedes the second one since they
express the main contrast: the contrast between many and even
more and between on the mainland and on the islands is more
prominent than the contrast between lawlul women and
concubines and between Aiolian and lonian cities.
ll the adjectives is less inlormative than the noun, they are
postposed, as can be seen in example [18] and [1]:

eno c Ayiiuv ie cie qccuv eiicuv oo0 tco eio ioiuvo
ie u ie oiviic ienoooi noiioi, iet nc ie cv toioi
ctcoioi

Alter ten days journey again lrom Augila there is yet another hill ol
salt and springs ol water and many lruit-bearing palms, as at the
other places.

[1] lerodotus 1.2.2

welded iron.

ln the description ol the oasis at a ten-days travel lrom Augila in
example [18], the noun oiviic is the most inlormative element ol
the Nl because ol the enumeration ol salt, water and trees. Ol the
less inlormative, and therelore postposed adjectives, the lormer is
more inlormative than the latter since it is the lact the trees bear
lruit that is more relevant lor travellers in the desert than their
number. lxample [1] seems to be a counterexample to the
inlormativeness principle, as a contrastive adjective lollows the
noun. lowever, this contrastive adjective is still less inlormative
than the preceding noun, which is contrastive itsell.
ly assuming that the position ol the adjectives in relation to the
noun is dependent on their inlormativeness, l can also account lor
the lrequently attested noun phrase pattern in which one or more
adjectives precede and one or more adjectives lollow the noun:
1

toutou c to0 ooncu to0 eto encqcvou noiie ite
de(ei tctiuiioi qiovcei ioiouoei cv eyycioioi eyucoioi
novtei ip dv cieuvp ciototc.

1his water ol the choaspes is boiled, and very many lour-wheeled
wagons drawn by mules carry it in silver vessels, lollowing the king
wherever he goes at any time.

cncev c eniiuvtei c tqv loueotiv, otouoi cyie evyovtc
Ouoie, ie oivo enciivo eveioio0tei nicuv cv tp otp teutp (
cv t( dnevti cvieut( t( cniioin(.

lut when they have reached loubastis, they make a lestival with
great sacrilices, and more wine is drunk at this least than in the whole
year besides.

ln example [19], the adjective noiiei is more inlormative, but
tctiuiioi and qiovcei are less inlormative than the noun in
between. whereas lerodotus wanted to stress the enormous number
ol drinking water wagons lollowing the king (cl. ite), he

1
1his pattern cannot be dealt with within the lunctional and semantic
approach ol lugier and corbin and kisselada (see section 1), since the adjectives do
not diller in their distance to the noun. kisselada (1984) has therelore restricted her
analysis ol adjective order in latin to those Nls in which both adjectives preceded
or lollowed the noun.
considered the nature ol these wagons ol secondary importance. ln
the same way, the lirst adjective in example [20], though lacking an
explicit indication such as ite in example [19], is more
inlormative than the lollowing noun: they drink more wine at the
lestival than in the wnc|c year besides. 1he second adjective, on the
other hand, lollows the noun as the inlormation it provides is rather
predictable: it is only logical that the consumption ol wine during
the lestival is compared to the consumption ol wine during the
remainder ol the year.

juxtapcsiticn anJ cc-crJinaticn

Apart lrom being juxtaposed, two or more adjectives in one Nl may
also be coordinated by a connection particle (e.g. c, iei, otc) or
pause.
18
lor these co-ordinated adjectives,
19
the principle that Nls
with multiple adjectives are ordered lrom more inlormative
constituents on the lelt to less inlormative constituents on the right
does not seem to be valid. lor although the position ol the adjectives
in relation to the noun is in accordance with the inlormativeness

18
8ince a pause due to the lack ol punctuation marks lelt no trace in the
written text, it is hard to distinguish adjectives co-ordinated by means ol a pause
lrom juxtaposed ones. ln her study ol the dillerence between co-ordinated and
juxtaposed latin adjectives, kisselada (1984: 202) suggests that in the case ol so-
called zero-co-ordination, an overt co-ordinator can be inserted without changing
the meaning ol the Nl. 1his criterion, however, sounds easier than it is, lor in
practice it is olten hard to decide whether an overt co-ordinator may be inserted
without any ellect on the meaning ol the Nl (in ldt. 4.2.1 to c tuv eieiuv
ietuncOc oc etcicu oic oei ce ye qie enotvci dete, but
what lies north ol the bald men no one can say with exact knowledge, lor high
impassable mountains bar the way, lor instance, l lind it hard to decide whether an
overt co-ordinator can or cannot be inserted). lurthermore, one runs the risk ol
judging the latin or oreek examples on the basis ol the acceptability ol the lnglish
translation. uespite these objections to kisseladas criterion, l cannot oller a better
alternative.

19
lt is important to note that not all sequences ol noun-adjective-co-ordinator-
adjective or adjective-co-ordinator-adjective-noun make up one Nl with two co-
ordinated adjectives. lxamples like ldt. .112 _uoc tc ie eyuce cteiie (gold
and silver mines) and ldt. 1.180.! oiicuv tioouv iei tcteouv (houses
with three and lour lloors) do not consist ol one Nl with two co-ordinated
adjectives, but ol two co-ordinated Nls, ol which the lirst, respectively the last is
elliptical. lxamples like these lall outside the scope ol the present paper, which
studies adjective ordering witnin the Nl.
principle,
20
the order ol the adjectives themselves seems more
dependent on their heaviness
21
than on their inlormativeness. 1he
strong inlluence ol the heaviness ol the adjectives on their ordering
is most evident in those cases in which the meaning ol the adjectives
dillers so little that their inlormativeness cannot play any role:

[21] lerodotus .8!.2
oicuqv cv toieutqv ci_ov q nc cqtei, _u c _uoov tc
noiiov ie dOovov c_ovtc cvcncnov.

1heir equipment was such as l have said, beyond this they stood out
by the abundance ol gold that they had.

[22] lerodotus .1!.4
o c icyctei no tq 5iiciiq tuv oiqtouv te ncvevtie toutuv
ncuicvei Oqiuiq tc ie eieiutco ev(.

le (=1elines), on the contrary, is reported by the dwellers in 8icily to
be a solt and elleminate man.

On the basis ol examples like [21] and [22], it seems legitimate to
draw the conclusion that the order ol co-ordinated adjectives is
determined by their heaviness. lor a number ol reasons, however,
this conclusion is a bit oversimplilied. lirst ol all, it would not do
justice to the lact that, in many cases, the ordering ol the adjectives
is also in accordance with the inlormativeness principle. lor
instance:

[2!] lerodotus 8.!.2
ûicuv cv noiiei tc ie oiioi noiic, Atuiuv c 'lii
ouvq, ûonuv c 'liuv tc ie Àoivq q no leeuip tp
Aeiuviip, Aqviuv c leucqtei nvtc.

20
1his may be demonstrated by the dillerence between example [21] and [22]. ln
example [21], the adjectives lollow the noun since the noun is more inlormative
than the adjectives. lt is the lact that the lmmortals are all covered with c|J that
amazes lerodotus. 1he adjectives in example [22], on the other hand, precede the
noun since the qualilications expressed by the adjectives are more inlormative than
the noun itsell (it is not very surprising that 1elines is a man).

21
leaviness is understood to mean the length or complexity ol the constituent
at issue. 1hat languages have a prelerence lor ordering constituents in an order ol
increasing complexity was lirst lormulated by lehaghel (19!2) as the 6csctz Jcr
wacnscnJcn 6|icJcr.
1he uorians have many, lamous cities, the Aitolians only llis, the
uryopians lermione and Asine near lakonian lardamyle, the
lemnians all the laroreatae.

[24] lerodotus 8.60e
(1hemistokles tries to persuade the commanders ol the lleet to join
battle at the strait at 8alamis rather than in the open sea at the
lsthmos).
no cv t( `loO( ouiiuv cv nciyc evencntecv(
veue_(oci, c to qiiote qiv ouoov coti vce c_ouoi
eutce ie eiOov ciooove

ll you join battle at the lsthmus, you will light in the open sea where it
is least to our advantage, since our ships are heavier and lewer in
number.

ln example [2!], the adjective noiiei, apart lrom being the least
heavy adjective, may also be said to precede oiioi because ol the
contrast between the many cities ol the uorians and the single
Aitolian city (cl. ouvq). 8imilarly, the preposition ol the lirst
adjective (eutce) in example [24] may not only be due to its
being less heavy, but also to its being more inlormative than the
lollowing ciooove: it is mainly the unwieldiness, and therelore the
lack ol manoeuvrability, ol the oreek ships that makes a battle at
open sea so unattractive. ln a small strait, this disadvantage is
annulled as there is scarce room lor complex manoeuvres.
8econdly, there is a small number ol examples in which the order
ol the adjectives does not conlirm the heaviness principle:

[2] lerodotus !.42.1
evq eiic ieuv _Ov cyev tc ie ieiov q(iou iv
loiuitc uov oOqvei.

A lisherman, who had taken a line and great lish, desired to make a
gilt ol it to lolykrates.

[26] lerodotus !.!.1
icyctei c ie c ioyo, co cv o niOevo, u tuv lcoiuv
yuveiiuv cociOo0o ti nee te luou yuveiie, u cic tp
leooevvp necotcute tcive ccice tc ie cyie, noii(
c_dto t( cneiv( ncOuouoe.

1he lollowing story, incredible to me, is also told: that one ol the
lersian women who came to visit lyros wives, and saw the tall and
attractive children who stood by lasandane, expressed her
admiration in extravagant terms.

ln example [2], the heaviness principle cannot be decisive lor the
order ol the adjectives since the adjectives do not diller in their
length. ln example [26], the order ol the adjectives even runs
counter to the heaviness principle in that the lirst adjective is
heavier than the second one. Although the inlluence ol pragmatics is
not as clear as in the examples [2!] and [24] above, it might be
delended that the order ol the adjectives in [2] and [26] is
determined by their inlormativeness. ln example [2], the size ol the
lish might be argued to be more inlormative than its beauty on the
basis ol the argument that a small lish, no matter how beautilul,
would never have been brought to the ling. ln example [26], the
relatively higher importance ol the lirst adjective becomes clearer il
we compare this example to another example with the same
adjectives in a dillerent order:

[2] lerodotus .6.1
cv tp notcp vuit tuv leveOqveiuv coicc o lnne_o dve oi
cniotvte cyev ie ccice evioocoOei tc te cnce

ln the night belore the lanathenaea he thought that a tall and
handsome man stood over him uttering these riddling verses.

whereas in example [2] the size ol the man is ol primary
importance, since it is exactly this characteristic that reveals the
divine nature ol the night-time visitor, the women in example [26]
are, apparently, mainly impressed by the beauty ol the children ol
lassandane.
A third objection to the conclusion that the order ol co-ordinated
adjectives is determined by their heaviness is that it would pass over
the lact that the order ol co-ordinated adjectives may be determined
by their semantics:

ci c ÀivOou oucvoi tov AOuv nciceiiov. cnincouv c oi
ncinicouoi oq dvco cye tc ie dnoo ite tq_cu
nciconc ni(Oc noiie tuv vcuv ciiiuv no tov AOuv.

lut a great and irresistible north wind lell upon them as they sailed
past and dealt very roughly with them, driving many ol their ships
upon Athos.

Au}lc1lVl OkulklNo lN llkOuO1L8 20!
[29] lerodotus .198.1
nc c tov _uov ce qie ie dete nciiiqici ndoev tqv
mqiie yqv, 1q_iviei nctei ieicocvei.

And around the ground high and inaccessible mountains enclose the
whole ol malis and are called the kocks ol 1rachis.

Although the order ol the adjectives in the examples [28] is in
accordance with the heaviness principle, l would like to argue that it
is not the heaviness, but the semantics ol the adjectives that
determine their order. like in example [29], the second adjective
lollows the lirst one not since it is heavier, but since it expresses a
consequence ol the lirst adjective. ln example [29], dete lollows
qi to express that the inaccessibility ol the mountains is a
consequence ol their height: the mountains are high and tncrcjcrc
inaccessible. 8imilarly, dnoo in example [28] expresses a
consequence ol cye, so that its position alter cye is only
natural.
22

On the basis ol the examples above, we have to conclude that
even though almost all examples ol co-ordinated adjectives are
ordered lrom less heavy adjectives on the lelt to more heavy
adjectives on the right, the ordering ol co-ordinated adjectives is not
exclusively determined by the heaviness principle. loth the
inlormativeness and the semantics ol the adjectives also play a role,
even though the role ol the lormer is much smaller than in the case
ol juxtaposed adjectives.
1he examples above might have raised the question in which
aspect co-ordinated adjectives diller lrom juxtaposed ones. ln most
ol the articles discussed in the lirst section, this dillerence remains
undiscussed, even though most ol them explicitly state that co-
ordinated adjectives are lelt out ol consideration because ol their
deviant behaviour. lor lugier and corbin (19) and kisselada (1984),
however, the dillerence between co-ordination and juxtaposition is

22
1raditionally, it was assumed that the consecutive interpretation ol the
second adjective in cases like these was due to the explicative value ol the co-
ordinator. lt was argued that iei, apart lrom expressing plain co-ordination, could
also be used in a so-called explicative mode (cl. lhner-oerth 1898-1904: 2.24). lt
seems more sound, however, to assume that the consecutive interpretation ol the
second adjective is a consequence ol the semantics ol the adjectives (in combination
with the readers knowledge ol the world), not ol the value ol the co-ordinator.
their primary concern. According to lugier and corbin (19),
adjectives are co-ordinated il they both have a qualilying lunction,
and are juxtaposed il they do not.
2!
kisselada, who considers the
semantics ol the adjective the crucial lactor, rather than its lunction,
argues, on the other hand, that adjectives are co-ordinated il they
are equivalent as to semantic relationship with the head (kisselada
1984: 210) and are juxtaposed il they are not.
24
loth views, however,
turn out to be invalid lor Ancient oreek.
2
lxample [!0], lor instance,
contradicts the view ol lugier and corbin, as the adjectives are
juxtaposed, although both have a qualilying lunction (cl. also
example [1]).

te0te cv vuv loivOioi tc ie Acoioi icyouoi, ie Àiovo coti
evOqe _iicov o cye cn 1eiv(, cn ciivo cncuv
dvOuno.

1his is what the lorinthians and lesbians say, and there is a little
bronze memorial ol Arion on 1aenaros, the ligure ol a man riding
upon a dolphin.

2!
lor a short description ol the dillerence between qualilying and identilying
adjective, see section 1.

24
leing equivalent as to semantic relationship with the head means that the
adjectives give inlormation on the same leature ol the relerent (e.g. provenance,
colour, size). kisselada concretises the rather vague same leature ol the relerent by
setting up a classilication ol adjectives alter the example ol letzron. Lselul though
this classilication may be, the lact that she lirst argues that juxtaposition or co-
ordination depends on the semantic classes ol the adjectives and subsequently sets
up a classilication cn tnc uasis cj the behaviour with respect to co-ordination and
juxtaposition makes her account quite circular.

2
l seriously doubt whether they are valid lor latin. As indicated above, lugiers
classilication ol adjectives is problematic in that adjectives may be qualilying and
identilying at the same time (see page 190). kisseladas semantic approach, apart
lrom being circular (see the previous note), is disputed by her own remark that a
writer may co-ordinate two adjectives ol dillerent semantic classes il he chooses to
put them on the same level. ll the writer can inlluence the juxtapositionJco-
ordination in these cases, why not also make him responsible lor the choice
juxtapositionJco-ordination in all other instances7
Although l did not lind any example in my corpus ol juxtaposition ol
semantically similar adjectives, kisseladas view is nonetheless
contested by examples like the lollowing, in which the adjectives are
co-ordinated although they do obviously not belong to the same
semantic class:
26

2

c(u(veoe Aqoti q c(cu yuvq do cye tc ie noiiiiov
ie Ocq d(iov ioi c(p.

Xerxes wile, Amestris, wove and gave to him a great, gaily-coloured
mantle, marvellous to see.

[!2] lerodotus 4.0.!
etq tc q q _iuv ciio0oe c etov ouniqOuci ie oi
noiioi tc ie ioi ov etp

8o this snow-melt pours into the river and helps to swell it and much
violent rain besides.

ln my opinion, the dillerence between juxtaposed and co-ordinated
adjectives has nothing to do with their lunction or semantic class,
but with their scope.
28
ln the case ol juxtaposed adjectives, one ol the
adjectives has scope over the combination ol the noun plus the other
adjective(s). co-ordinated adjectives, on the other hand, do not have
scope over each other, but only modily the noun itsell.
8chematically, the dillerence may be depicted as lollows:

26
Other examples ol co-ordinated adjectives belonging to dillerent semantic
classes can be lound in [2!] and [24].

2
1o us, the co-ordination ol the three adjectives by means ol the co-ordinator
iei (instead ol by a commaJpause) sounds very emphatic. lt is uncertain, however,
whether the use ol an explicit co-ordinator in Ancient oreek was as emphatic as it is
in lnglish and other modern luropean language, cl. 8myth (196: 61): in a series ol
more than two ideas iei is used belore each, where lnglish would use anJ only
belore the last. As a consequence ol the lact that zero-coordination can hardly be
distinguished lrom juxtaposition (see n. 18), it is almost impossible to study the
dillerences between (the ellects ol) explicit and zero-coordination in oreek.

28
1he same opinion can be lound in uik (199a: 1!6).
[!!a] juxtaposition: A
x
(A
y
N) or (N A
y
) A
x
29

e.g. ucautiju| c|J cars (= old cars which are beautilul)

[!!b] co-ordination: A
x
- A
y
(N) or (N) A
x
- A
y

e.g. ucautiju|, c|J cars (= cars which are beautilul and old)
!0

8mall though the dillerence may seem lor Nls in isolation, within
their context the dillerence in meaning and especially
implications turns out to be considerable. ln example [2!] (repeated
below lor convenience), lor instance, juxtaposition ol the same
adjectives would lead to the interpretation that the uorians had
many cities ol the kind lamous instead ol many cities, which were
all lamous. whereas juxtaposition ol the adjectives would leave the
possibility open that the uorians also had many non-lamous cities,
co-ordination ol the adjectives explicitly excludes this
interpretation.

[2!] lerodotus 8.!.2
ûicuv cv noiiei tc ie oiioi noiic, Atuiuv c 'lii
ouvq, ûonuv c 'liuv tc ie Àoivq q no leeuip tp
Aeiuviip, Aqviuv c leucqtei nvtc.

1he uorians have many, lamous cities, the Aitolians only llis, the
uryopians lermione and Asine near lakonian lardamyle, the
lemnians all the laroreatae.

8imilarly, il the adjectives in example [!4] were juxtaposed, it would
be possible to interpret that the bushes, apart lrom bearing much

29
lt is important to note that this scheme is meant as a semantic representation
ol a Nl with two juxtaposed adjectives, not a syntactic one. As l hope to have shown
in section 2, in Ancient oreek, the position ol an adjective is dependent on its
inlormation value. An adjective that has scope over the combination noun plus
adjective is thus not necessarily expressed lurther lrom the noun than the
adjective(s) in its scope.

!0
ln the lnglish example, the co-ordination is expressed by a comma,
symbolising a pause in spoken discourse, since in lnglish a pause is the most neutral
way to co-ordinate two adjectives.
stinking lruit, also bore sweet-smelling lruit. 1his interpretation,
however, is surely blocked now the adjectives are co-ordinated.

!1

eicieti c _cuvtei Ayuntiuv oi nc te ice oicovtc eno tuv
oiiiiiuniuv to0 ieno0, to ieicouoi cv Ayuntioi iiii, (...) te0te
cv tp Ayunt( onciocve ienov cci noiiov cv, uouce
c

1he lgyptians who live around the marshes use an oil drawn lrom the
castor-berry, which they call kiki. (...) sown in lgypt, it produces
abundant lruit, though malodorous.

ln conclusion, l support kisseladas assumption that the dillerence
between juxtaposed and co-ordinated adjectives is semantic. Yet, it
is, in my opinion, not their (dis)similar semantic relationship with
the head, but their scope that determines whether the adjectives are
juxtaposed or co-ordinated. 1he lact that adjectives belonging to the
same semantic class seldom have scope over each other explains
why such a high percentage ol kisseladas data answered her
hypothesis.

!1
lt is not entirely clear whether the order ol the adjectives in this example,
which is in accordance with the heaviness principle, also endorses the
inlormativeness principle. On the basis ol the preceding inlormation that the
lgyptians use the lruit ol the kiki to produce oil, it might be delended that the lirst
adjective is more inlormative, as the abundance ol the lruit is more relevant lor the
production ol oil than its unpleasant odour. lt is also possible, however, to interpret
the second adjective as more inlormative than the lirst one: the lruit is abundant,
yet (and thats the main point) malodorous. Apart lrom the lact that the context is
not very helplul, the decision lor one interpretation or the other is complicated by
the lact that we do not know the exact lunction ol c within Nls. uoes it just add
new inlormation in a discontinuous way (as 8icking and Van Ophuijsen (199!: 10-)
assume to be the basic lunction ol c at the level ol the sentence), or is this new
inlormation presented as more important, more inlormative or more relevant than
the preceding inlormation7 1he number ol adjectives co-ordinated by means ol
(cv) c in my corpus is too limited to answer this question. lncidentally, the order
ol the modiliers in an example like [!4] might also be inlluenced by the allective
load principle, which says that positively loaded adjectives preler to precede
negatively loaded ones (see wulll 200!: 264-6).
6 1nc njcrmativcncss rincip|c anJ 1cxt ntcrprctaticn

ln the previous sections, l hope to have shown that Nls with
multiple adjectives, both juxtaposed and co-ordinated, are ordered
lrom more inlormative constituents on the lelt to less inlormative
constituents on the right. Not only the order ol the adjectives
themselves, but also their position in relation to the noun turned out
to depend on their pragmatic marking. ln examples shown above,
knowledge ol the ordering principle was unnecessary lor a proper
interpretation ol the Nl, as the context provided essential clues. Ol
course, it was exactly the lact tnat the context was so clear that made
these examples suitable lor proving the inlormativeness principle.
Yet, there are many examples in which the context is not decisive
lor the proper interpretation ol the noun phrase. ln these cases,
awareness ol the inlormativeness principle olten leads to a better
understanding ol the oreek text. 1he lirst part ol example [!], lor
instance,

[!] lerodotus .10y1
cyu c ocip ooip oiqip eto te0te ouiioei, eii oiov
iotc qce oiiyou ccqoc ieteieciv nOo, tc netq o oo (...)
icq cn 5iuOe.

lt is lrom no own wisdom that l thus conjecture, but because ol the
disaster that once almost overtook us, when your lather (...) crossed
over to attack the 8kythians.

is usually translated with l havent thought this up mysell or it is
lrom no wisdom ol my own.
!2
1hese translations clearly lail to
recognise the subtle nuances the ordering ol the Nl constituents
brings about, as they give much weight to oiqip, although it is the
last constituent ol the Nl. According to the inlormativeness
principle, both ocip and ooip should be interpreted as more
inlormative than the linal oiqip. most probably, ocip is most
inlormative because ol emphasis (none), and ooip is inlormative
in that it contrasts with nOo in the lollowing line. 8o, Artabanos

!2
8ee, lor instance, the lnglish translation by A.u. oodley (to be lound at
www.perseus.tults.edu), 8. lelberbaum (to be lound at www.losttrails.com) and A.
de 8lincourt & A.k. lurn, 1nc uistcrics, larmondsworth (194).
does not want to communicate that it is lrom no wisdom Ol ll8 OwN,
but that it is lrom NO wl8uOm, but disaster.
Another example in which knowledge ol the inlormativeness
principle might increase our understanding ol the text, is [!6]:

[!6] lerodotus 9.22.1-2
iet e_e o uvcvoi. coicueoto ye otu cvto Ouqie ci_c
_uocov icniutov, ietuncOc c to0 Ouqio iiOuve oiviicov
cvccuicc tuntovtc c c tov Ouqie cnoicuv ocv, niv yc q
eOuv ti to noicucvov neici iv c tov oOeiov

1hey could not, however, kill him (=masistios) at lirst, lor he was
outlitted in the lollowing manner: he had on a cuirass ol golden
scales, with a purple tunic covering it, thus they accomplished
nothing by striking at the cuirass, until someone saw what was
happening and stabbed him in the eye.

without knowledge ol the inlormativeness principle, the average
reader will assume that it is the scaly structure ol masistios cuirass
that deserves special attention, as this protects him lrom being
killed, at least lor a while. 1he lact that adjective icniutov is
preceded by the adjective _uocov, however, should be interpreted
as indication that it is the material rather than the structure ol the
cuirass that is signilicant. As example [!] proves, ring-armour was a
typical part ol the lersians equipment:

[!] lerodotus .61
Oi c otetcuocvoi oc qoev. lcoei cv uc coicueocvoi nc
cv tpoi iceipoi ci_ov tie ieicocvou niiou eneyce, nc c
to oue iiOuve _ciiuto noiiiiou, ... icnio oiqcq iv
_Ouocico, nc c te oicice eve(uie.

1he men who served in the army were the lollowing: the lersians
were equipped in this way: they wore on their heads loose caps called
tiaras, and on their bodies embroidered sleeved tunics, with scales ol
iron like the scales ol lish in appearance, and trousers on their legs.

1he outstanding material ol masistios cuirass, however, was not.
Awareness ol the inlormativeness principle helps the reader to
arrive at the correct interpretation ol the Nl, even il he does not
remember anymore what the standard lersian equipment looked
like (and has no commentary at hand to help him remember).

ccnc|usicn

1he last two examples were meant to illustrate that even in a text
which is relatively easy to understand awareness ol the order ol the
adjectives in the Nl may lead to a better interpretation ol the text.
1hat the order ol the adjectives contributes to the understanding ol
the text is due to the lact that in oreek, adjective order does not (as
in other languages) depend on the semantics or lunction ol the
adjectives, but on pragmatics. lt is the message the speaker wants to
convey that determines the position ol the adjectives, both in
relation to themselves and to the noun. 1he general rule is that the
most inlormative constituent is expressed lirst. consequently, oreek
Nls with multiple adjectives are ordered lrom more inlormative
constituents on the lelt to less inlormative constituents on the right.
ln Nls with co-ordinated adjectives, however, the constituents
inlormativeness is less inlluential lor their ordering. Although the
position ol these adjectives in relation to the noun is still determined
by their inlormativeness, the order ol the adjectives themselves is
determined by a combination ol their heaviness, inlormativeness
and semantics.

clAl1lk lllVlN

lkOm ulml1klL8 1O ull
ANcllN1 ANu mOulkN Vllw8 ON oklll ANu lA1lN wOku Okulk

casper c. de }onge

1 ntrcJucticn

Over the last decades, the interrelationship between linguistics and
literature has become a major lield ol interest in classical studies.
lowever, consideration ol the connections between linguistic
analysis and literary observations is not altogether new. ln antiquity,
there is one discipline that systematically combines linguistic and
literary approaches to texts, namely rhetorical theory. within that
discipline, it is the subject ol style that clearly illustrates the ancient
interest in the language ol literature. On the one hand, rhetoricians
tell their students how they should use grammar in order to create
literary ellects. On the other hand, they discuss the linguistic aspects
ol classical texts in which they lind good examples ol ellective
writing. 1hus, longinus, the author ol on tnc 5uu|imc, investigates
how the use ol the historic present contributes to sublime writing.
1

uionysius ol lalicarnassus shows how word order inlluences the
literary character ol a text when he rewrites sentences lrom
lerodotus in the style ol 1hucydides and legesias.
2
And the same
rhetorician discusses 1hucydides syntax (the use ol the parts ol
speech, gender, cases, tenses, voice and number) in order to show
how his style becomes obscure.
!
ln this article, l will locus on ancient
rhetorical views on word order, a subject in which linguistics and
literature are combined in an ellective way. l will investigate

1
lor longinus on the historic present, see 5uu|. 2.

2
uionysius ol lalicarnassus, ccmp. 4.18.4-19.18 (ed. Lsener & kadermacher). 8ee
ue }onge (200: 46-8).

!
lor uionysius observations on 1hucydides syntax, see esp. Amm. ll. On
uionysius integration ol linguistics and literature, see ue }onge (2006).
212 cA8llk c. ul }ONol
whether ancient theory can contribute to our understanding ol
oreek and latin word order.

2 Ancicnt 1nccry anJ VcJcrn kcscarcn

what do we do with ancient theory7 1his is an important question
that we all have to lace lrom time to time, whether we are working
on linguistics or on literary theory. ln general, there are two ways in
which one can study ancient views on language and literature. On
the one hand, one can interpret ancient theory lor its own sake. 1his
is what kichard korty calls historical reconstruction.
4
when
adopting this approach, one will carelully reconstruct the historical
contexts in which ancient views were developed, and the results
thus obtained will contribute to our knowledge ol the history ol
linguistics, or ol the history ol literary theory. On the other hand, we
can approach ancient grammarians, rhetoricians, literary critics and
philosophers as our own colleagues. 1his is what kichard korty calls
rational reconstruction.
when adopting this method, we

reconstruct the answers that earlier thinkers would have given to
our questions. A scholar who adopts the latter approach looks lor
theories that have been developed in antiquity, hoping that these
ancient theories may solve a modern problem. As lar as the
historiography ol linguistics is concerned, the dillerence between
those two approaches has been discussed by 8luiter, who
distinguishes between the external and the internal approach to
the history ol grammar.
6
Although the lormer type ol the study ol
ancient theory (historical reconstruction) is perlectly legitimate in
itsell and even necessary as a prerequisite lor the latter, it is the
second type (rational reconstruction) that will be the subject ol this
contribution.

4
korty (1984: 49-6). korty locuses on the historiography ol philosophy, but his
distinctions also apply to the history ol linguistics or literary theory. Apart lrom
historical and rational reconstruction, he distinguishes two more genres, namely
oeistesgeschichte and doxography. 8ee also ue }onge (2006: -6).

korty (1984: 49-6) compares historical and rational reconstruction.

6
8luiter (1998: 24-).

Albert kijksbaron, who is honoured with this volume on 1nc inuistics cj

itcraturc, has lrequently interpreted ancient linguistic theories in order to gain a

lkOm ulml1klL8 1O ull 21!
! Ancicnt 1nccry anJ luncticna| 6rammar: tnc casc cj wcrJ orJcr

1his article will investigate whether ancient theory can support or
even increase our understanding ol oreek and latin word order.
word order is one ol the problems ol oreek and latin syntax lor
which lunctional orammar has proven to be a lruitlul paradigm.
8

lelma uik (199) has convincingly argued that the distribution ol
pragmatic lunctions, which specily the inlormational status ol the
constituents in a sentence, provides a more coherent explanation ol
the word order ol oreek sentences than the traditional approach,
which starts lrom syntactic lunctions. ln the lield ol latin syntax,
the work ol lanhuis (1982), linkster (1990) and uevine & 8tephens
(2006) has shown that a pragmatic approach may explain at least
part ol the variation ol latin word order as well.
8ome ol the modern scholars who work on oreek or latin word
order reler to ancient grammatical and rhetorical theories.
9
ln my
view, however, their interpretation ol the ancient views is not in all
respects satislactory. l will discuss some ol the views on word order
that were developed in ancient rhetorical theory. l will argue that
these views seem to support the most recent accounts ol oreek and
latin word order, which have been developed within the lramework
ol lunctional orammar. lirst, l will point to the importance ol the
concept ol order in ancient grammatical and rhetorical theory
(section 4). 1hen l will locus on the views ol two rhetoricians in
particular, namely uemetrius and Quintilian (sections and 6).
linally, l will brielly investigate the historical line that may be
drawn between ancient rhetoric and modern linguistic theory
(section ).

better understanding ol certain grammatical problems. 8uccesslul examples ol this
method are kijksbaron (1986) and kijksbaron (1989).

8
lor lunctional orammar, see uik (199a and b).

9
8ee weil (198 [1844]: 14-1), uover (1960: 9), linkster (1991: 0) and uik (199:
1-2).
4 orJcr in Ancicnt 6rammatica| anJ knctcrica| 1nccry

Order (t(i, crJc) is a central concept in ancient rhetorical theory,
both in the treatment ol thoughts (Jispcsitic) and in the treatment ol
expression (c|ccutic).
10
ln grammatical theory, order plays an equally
important role, not only on a practical level, but also on a theoretical
one. On the one hand, grammarians are concerned with the correct
order ol words in a sentence.
11
On the other, they discuss the
theoretical order in which the parts ol speech and their acciJcntia
should be treated in a grammar.
12
One view occurs lrequently in both
grammatical and rhetorical discussions ol t(i (crJc) on all the
levels mentioned: the idea that there is one particular order that is
natura| (uoiio, natura|is).
1!
1hus, the grammarian Apollonius
uyscolus argues that there is a lixed theoretical order ol the parts ol
speech, which is mainly based on logical rules.
14

8imilar theories lie behind the lamous discussion ol natural word
order in uionysius ol lalicarnassus work on ccmpcsiticn (uc
ccmpcsiticnc vcrucrum). ln the lilth chapter ol that treatise, uionysius
reports on a language experiment: he tried out whether the
juxtaposition ol words according to their grammatical word class
results in beautilul composition. lor example, nouns should be
placed belore verbs, since the lormer indicate the substance, and
the latter the accident, and the substance is naturally prior to its
accidents. lor similar reasons, verbs should precede adverbs,
substantives should come belore adjectives, and so on. uionysius
tests these rules on his corpus, which consists ol lomers |iaJ and
oJysscy. le observes that some ol the beautilul lomeric lines are
indeed composed according to natural word order, but many ol

10
On crJc and its oreek equivalents (t(i, iooo, oiovoie) in ancient
rhetoric, see lrnst (200!).

11
8ee e.g. Apollonius uyscolus, 5ynt. l.1!2. cl. 8luiter (1990: 61-9).

12
lor the theoretical order ol the parts ol speech, see Apollonius uyscolus, 5ynt.
l.1!-29. lor the order ol the moods, see 5ynt. lll.9 and lll.62. lor the order ol the
voices, see 5ynt. lll.8. On the ancient views on natural word order, see ue }onge
(2001).

1!
cl. lrnst (200!: 416). ln rhetoric, the distinction between an crJc natura|is and
an crJc artijicia|is occurs both on the level ol thoughts (the order ol the parts ol a
speech, the arguments, and the narrated events) and on the level ol expression (the
order ol letters, syllables, and words).

14
8ee 5ynt. l.1!-2. cl. ue }onge (2001: 162-!).
lkOm ulml1klL8 1O ull 21
them are not. 1herelore, he rejects the grammatical approach to
word order. l have argued elsewhere that his discussion is largely
based on the 8toic theory ol categories.
1

lelma uik quotes uionysius on the lirst two pages ol her book and
she presents his experiment as the prototype ol the syntactic
approach to word order. laving mentioned some modern linguists
who adopt a more pragmatic approach (in particular lrisk, loeple
and uover), she concludes that we should not think that there has
been no prcrcss since the days ol uionysius.
16
1his statement is
problematic in two respects. lirst, we should be aware ol the
lunction ol uionysius passage on natural word order within the
context ol his work on ccmpcsiticn. kight lrom the start, he presents
the experiment concerning the order ol the parts ol speech as an
unlruitlul approach: the subject ol his treatise is sty|istic composition
that results in charm and beauty, the means to achieve these ellects
are music (or sound), rhythm, variety and propriety. 1hus, within
the treatise on ccmpcsiticn, the passage on natural word order
lunctions as a loil lor his actual theories on artistic devices such as
euphony and rhythm. 1he second point that l would like to make is
that when looking lor support lor the pragmatic approach, we could
lind more appropriate parallels in ancient rhetorical theory than the
passage lrom uionysius on ccmpcsiticn. ln particular, we should turn
to the views ol uemetrius.

ucmctrius cn Natura| wcrJ orJcr

uemetrius is the conventional name ol the author ol the treatise on
5ty|c (lc cqvcie).
1
1he date ol the work is uncertain, but most
scholars now agree that its contents rellect the second century lc.
1he author ol on 5ty|c discusses the natural order ol words (q
uoiiq t(i tuv ovotuv) in his account ol the simple style
(_eeitq o_vo):

1
8ee ue }onge (2001: 160-1) and ue }onge (2006: 221-9).

16
uik (199: 1-2). my italics.

1
On date and authorship ol uemetrius on 5ty|c, see lnnes (199: !12-21).
[1] uemetrius, |cc. 199-201
ie iu tp uoiip t(ci tuv ovotuv _qotcov, u to Tnievo
coti noii cv c(i conicovti c tov 1oviov ioinov nutov cv ye
uvoeotei to nc o, cutcov c o to0to cotiv, ti noii, ie te
diie cc(q. yiyvoito cv ov dv ie to cneiiv, u to coti noii
Tuq. o ye nvtq teutqv oiiocv tqv t(iv, oc tqv ctcev
enooiiocv, ieOe citiOccOe ovov to uoiiov cio tq
t(cu. cv c toi iqy(eoiv qtoi eno tq oOq eitcov, Tnievo
coti noii, ( eno tq etietiiq, u to icyctei Tnievov tqv noiiv.
ei c diiei ntuoci eociv tive nec(ouoi ie oevov t( tc
icyovti et( ie t( eiouovti.

ln general, one should lollow the natural word order, lor example [1h.
1.24.1] lpidamnos is a city on your right as you sail into the lonian
gull. 1he topic is mentioned lirst, then what it is (that it is a city), and
then the rest lollows. 1he order can also be reversed, lor example
[lomer, |. 6.12] 1here is a city, lphyre. we do not rigidly approve
the one nor condemn the other order, we are simply setting out the
natural way to arrange words. ln narrative passages begin either with
the nominative case (e.g. lpidamnus is a city) or with the accusative
(e.g. lt is said that the city lpidamnus...). Lse ol the other cases will
cause some obscurity and torture lor the speaker himsell and also lor
the listener. (1ranslation adapted lrom lnnes)

As an example ol natural word order, uemetrius quotes a sentence in
which to nc o (the matter about which) is mentioned in the lirst
place (nutov), and o to0to cotiv (what it is) in the second place
(cutcov):

Tnievo coti noii cv c(i conicovti c tov 1oviov ioinov.

lpidamnos is a city on your right as you sail into the lonian gull.

ln 1hucydides, this sentence lollows the VctncJcnkapitc| (1h. 1.20-22)
and the subsequent passage in which the historian discusses the
importance ol the leloponnesian war (1h. 1.2!). 1he introduction ol
lpidamnos starts the story about the war between corcyra and
corinth, which is also the lirst part ol the narrative as a whole. ln my
view, the best interpretation ol uemetrius expression to nc o
would be that it is (in a non-technical sense) the topic. lt is the
subject about which something is going to be stated. oiven the lact
that uemetrius treatise is deeply inlluenced by the leripatetic
tradition, l would suggest that the expression to nc o is related to
Aristotelian rhetorical theory.
18
According to Aristotle, a ioyo
consists ol three parts, namely the speaker (o icyuv), the thing
about which he speaks (nc o icyci) and the person to whom the
speech is addressed (no v).
19
Aristotle also states that the
introductions ol lorensic speeches and epic poems provide a sample
ol the argument so that the hearers know belorehand what the
argument is about (nc o o ioyo).
20

lt seems clear, then, that uemetrius uses Aristotelian terminology.
where Aristotle recommends starting a text by mentioning what it
is about (nc o o ioyo), as lomer did in the lirst lines ol the |iaJ
and oJysscy, uemetrius expresses the same view with regard to tnc
crJcr cj wcrJs (q uoiiq t(i tuv ovotuv). l should emphasise
that neither Aristotle nor uemetrius uses the expression nc o in
the technical sense in which modern linguists use the term 1opic.
Nevertheless, uemetrius statement on the position ol to nc o
reminds us ol modern pragmatic approaches to word order. 1he

18
lor the leripatetic inlluence on uemetrius, see 8olmsen (19!1).

19
Aristotle, kn. 1!8a!-b2: ouyicitei cv ye ci tiuv o ioyo, ci tc to0
icyovto ie nc o icyci ie no v, ie to tcio no to0tov cotiv, icyu c tov
eioet(v. lor every speech is composed ol three parts: the speaker, the subject
about which he speaks and the person addressed, and the objective ol the speech
relates to him, l mean the hearer. my translation ol Aristotle is based on the
translations by lreese (1926) and lennedy (1991).

20
Aristotle, kn. 141a12-21: cv c noioyoi ie cncoi ciy cotiv to0 ioyou,
ve nociuoi nc o [p] o ioyo ie q icqtei q ivoie to ye eoiotov niev
o o ov uonc c tqv _cie tqv e_qv noici c_ocvov eioiouOciv t( ioy(, ie
to0to
qviv dcic, Oc. dve oi cvvcnc, o0oe.
...
ie oi teyiio qio0oi nc o- to de, idv q cO uonc liniq cv t(
noioy(, eii nou yc, uonc [ie] 5ooiiq co netq qv loiuo.
ln prologues and in epic poems there is a sample ol the argument, in order that the
hearers may know belorehand what the speech is about, and that the mind may not
be kept in suspense: lor that which is undelined leads astray. le who gives, so to
say, the beginning into the hand [ol the hearer], enables him, il he holds last to it, to
lollow the argument. lence the lollowing exordia:
8ing the wrath, muse, 1ell me ol the man, muse.
(...)
And the tragedians make the topic ol their drama clear, il not at the outset, like
luripides in the prologue, at least somewhere, like 8ophocles, [8oph., o1 4] my
lather was lolybos.
expression to nc o could be the oreek translation ol part ol 8imon
uiks delinition ol 1opic lunction:
21

A constituent with 1opic lunction presents the entity about which
the lredication predicates something in the given setting.
A constituent with locus lunction presents the relatively most
important or salient inlormation with respect to the pragmatic
inlormation ol the 8peaker and the Addressee.

uemetrius view that the topic (in a non-technical sense) takes the
lirst position in the order ol words can be compared with the views
ol lelma uik. 1he clause pattern that she proposes lor Ancient
oreek is as lollows:
22

l1 l V X
in which
l1 is the position lor elements with 1opic lunction,
l is the locus position immediately preceding the verb,
V is the delault position lor the verb (il the verb is assigned 1opic or
locus lunction, it will go to the position appropriate lor that
pragmatic lunction, viz. l1 or l),
X is the position lor the remaining elements.

1he lirst position is reserved lor elements with 1opic lunction, the
position immediately preceding the verb is the locus position, the
verb takes the next place, unless it is assigned 1opic or locus
lunction. 1he remaining elements lollow, or, as uemetrius says, te
diie cc(q.
At this point l should clarily that l do not claim that the theories
ol uemetrius and uik are the same. lnstead, l argue that ij one looks
at ancient theory lrom a modern perspective, it is uemetrius whose
views are most simi|ar to the modern pragmatic views on word order.
Ol course, close attention should be paid to the context ol uemetrius
views. ln his treatise, uemetrius distinguishes lour styles
(_eeitqc), namely the grand style, the elegant style, the plain
style, and the lorcelul style. 1he discussion ol natural word order is
part ol the treatment ol the plain or simple style. 1his style (o
_eeitq o_vo) makes use ol simple subjects, diction and
arrangement. 1he examples that he cites under the treatment ol the

21
uik (198: 1!0).

22
uik (199: 12).
plain style are mainly taken lrom private speeches (e.g. lysias 1),
8ocratic dialogues, and narrative passages. clarity (oe(vcie) is one
ol the most important characteristics ol the plain style, which
uemetrius describes with a term like ouv(Oq, which means usual,
customary, or lamiliar.
2!
lt seems clear, then, that, in his
conception, natural word order corresponds to (or rather imitates)
the word order ol everyday language. while hyperbaton lits the
grand style, the uoiiq t(i is appropriate lor the simple style.
24

1here are two important dillerences between the theories ol
uemetrius and uik. lirst, uemetrius is primarily prescriptive,
whereas uik is descriptive. ln general, uemetrius intends to instruct
the luture writer by analysing classical examples. le does not give a
description ol the standard word order ol oreek, but explains how
one sncu|J arrange the words in order to write ellective texts.
8econd, the subject ol uemetrius treatise is style or expression
(cqvcie), that is, he deals with conscious and artistic arrangement,
which may also include aspects ol rhythm and euphony. uik, on the
other hand, selects lerodotus as a corpus precisely in order to
exclude euphony and rhythm as possible lactors. Although both ol
these dillerences should be taken into account, l do think that we
are allowed to connect uemetrius views on natural word order with
the modern pragmatic results, lor the lollowing reason. ln ancient
theory, it is precisely the plain style that is presented as an imitation
ol everyday language. ln uemetrius account ol word order, the
natural corresponds to the normal and the unmodilied. 1hus, in
the treatment ol the plain style, the prescriptive largely coincides
with the descriptive.
On a more general level, there are two important similarities
between ancient rhetorical theory and lunctional orammar. lirst,
both disciplines locus on the communicative lunction ol language:
sentences have a lunction in the communication between speaker
and addressee (o icyuv and o eiouuv according to uemetrius).
uemetrius presents natural order as contributing to the c|arity
(oe(vcie) ol the inlormation that is to be communicated.
2
8econd,

2!
8ee esp. |cc. 190 and 221. cl. |cc. 60.

24
cl. khys koberts (1969: 24).

2
8ee uemetrius, |cc. 192-20!, esp. 196-. As we have seen, he argues that
sentences should begin with either a nominative or an accusative, because use ol

both the ancient rhetorical and the modern pragmatic approach deal
with discourse as a whole rather than with isolated sentences. ln this
respect, rhetoric dillers lrom ancient grammar, which locuses on the
word as the central unit ol language. 1he teaching ol rhetoricians
aims at the composition ol a text as a whole.
26
lor these reasons, one
can hardly lind a more appropriate parallel to the modern pragmatic
account ol word order than the ancient rhetorical treatment ol word
order in the plain style.
2

lt may be instructive to analyse uemetrius examples lrom the
perspective ol lunctional orammar. low would lelma uik analyse
the lollowing sentence lrom 1hucydides7

Tnievo coti noii cv c(i conicovti c tov 1oviov ioinov.

lpidamnos is a city on your right as you sail into the lonian gull.

modern linguists who adopt the lramework ol lunctional orammar
would hold that this sentence is a statement aucut lpidamnos, and
that lpidamnos is the 1opic ol its clause. we may compare the
sentence lrom lerodotus 1.6, which is one ol uiks lavourite
examples:
28

[!] lerodotus 1.6
loioo qv Auo cv ycvo, nei c Aiuttcu, tuevvo c cOvcuv
tuv cvto .iuo noteo0, o ... c(ici no oqv dvcov c tov
l(civov ieicocvov novtov. oto o loioo ...

croesus was by birth a lydian, son ol Alyattes, and monarch ol all the
nations west ol the river lalys, which ... issues northward into the sea
called luxinus. 1his croesus ... (1ranslation oodley)

the other cases would cause obscurity (eocie) lor both the speaker himsell and
the listener (t( tc icyovti et( ie t( eiouovti). Although this is in itsell a
grammatical rather than a pragmatic rule, it is clear that it is based on the idea that
the plain style should aim at clarity lor the sake ol communication.

26
lven il uemetrius cites one specilic sentence lrom 1hucydides, he presumably
expects the reader to know the context.

2
8ince ancient grammarians concentrate on words and their combinations,
they do not pay much attention to matters ol text cohesion: in antiquity, this
subject belongs to the lield ol rhetoric rather than grammar.

28
8ee uik (199: 26 and 2!0-1).
ln 1hucydides 1.24.1, lelma uik would probably analyse coti noii
as having locus: it is the relatively most important or salient
inlormation in this clause. uemetrius states that alter the topic
(lpidamnos), the second thing that is mentioned is o to0to cotiv
(what it is), namely a noii. uemetrius terminology o to0to cotiv
seems to be prompted by the particular example that he cites
(Tnievo coti noii), and therelore we should not interpret this
expression as an equivalent ol the modern term locus: that would be
nincinintcrprcticrcn. lt might seem attractive to state that uemetrius
makes a distinction between 1opic and comment, but in that case we
would read too much in the expression o to0to cotiv.
lt should be noted that uemetrius does not strictly adhere to the
natural order ol words, but that he makes clear that the reversed
order is also allowed. le illustrates this with three words lrom
lomers |iaJ: coti noii Tuq (there is a city, lphyre):

[4] lomer, |iaJ 6.12-14
coti noii Tuq u_( "yco innootoio,
cvOe c 5iouo coicv, o icioto ycvct` evuv,
5iouo Aoiiq o ` de lie0iov tcicO` uiov

1here is a city lphyre in a corner ol Argos, pastureland ol horses, and
there dwelt 8isyphus who was craltiest ol men, 8isyphus, son ol
Aeolus, and he begot a son olaucus (1ranslation murray J wyatt)

1his text is part ol the speech that olaucus directs to uiomedes,
when the latter has asked him who he is. olaucus introduces himsell
by mentioning the city where his lorelather 8isyphus was born. ll we
lollow uemetrius, the order ol this sentence would be the reverse (to
cneiiv) ol that ol 1hucydides 1.24 (above). ln |iaJ 6.12, o to0to
cotiv (what it is) would thus precede to nc o (the topic): noii
precedes Tuq. lere, modern linguists would probably disagree
with uemetrius. loth uik and 8lings have discussed the type ol
presentative clauses starting with qv or coti.
29
1hey point out that
these sentences are olten used to introduce important new
participants or uiscourse 1opics. lelma uik argues that clause-initial
lorms ol civei have 1opic lunction: in her words, they are dummy

29
8ee uik (199: 221-8), 8lings (2002a: -) and 8lings (2002b: 28).
1opics that provide a stepping stone lor the locus constituent.
!0
ln
this type ol clauses, a constituent with locus lunction lollows the
clause-initial verb. ln other words, uik would presumably analyse
noii Tuq as the locus ol its clause, the new uiscourse 1opic (the
city lphyra) having locus lunction in the clause in which it is
introduced. we may compare lerodotus 1..2, where candaules is
introduced in a clause starting with qv.

[] lerodotus 1..2
qv leveuiq, tov oi +iiqvc muoiiov ovoouoi, tuevvo
5eiuv, enoyovo c Aiieiou to0 1eiico.

candaules, whom the oreeks call myrsilus, was the ruler ol 8ardis, he
was descended lrom Alcaeus, son ol leracles. (1ranslation oodley)

ln the above discussion ol uemetrius account ol the natural word
order ol the plain style, l have argued that his approach, despite
some dillerences with modern theory, supports the pragmatic
interpretation ol Ancient oreek word order. 1wo aspects ol his
approach in particular are uselul lor modern scholars. lirst, his
account ol word order is based on the idea that language has a
communicative lunction: natural word order is the order that aims
at clarity lor the listener or reader (o eiouuv). 8econd, uemetrius
argues that according to the natural order ol words one should start
with the matter about which (to nc o) and this idea corresponds
to the theories that have been developed within the lramework ol
lunctional orammar.
oiven the potential ol uemetrius discussion, it is remarkable that
some modern linguists have completely misunderstood his views.
!1

ln his book 6rcck wcrJ orJcr, uover states the lollowing:
!2

!0
uik (199: 229).

!1
ln his lamous treatise on word order, lenri weil (198 [1844]: 14) states the
lollowing (l quote lrom the lnglish translation by 8uper [188]): 1he author ol the
treatise uc |ccuticnc recommends the order ol words which he calls natural (uoiiq
t(i), and he does not speak ol substantives and verbs, but has in view, to judge
lrom his expressions, what are called subject and attribute. 1his rhetorician uses
exaggerated expressions to establish a theory which he has not himsell practiced in
the treatise which contains it. Apart lrom the lact that subject and attribute are
perhaps not the most lortunate interpretations ol uemetrius expressions, weils
analysis contains some remarkable statements. lirst, he ignores the lact that
uemetrius explicitly states that his natural word order is not the only possible one.
lurther, l think that close analysis ol uemetrius treatise would in lact show that in

lkOm ulml1klL8 1O ull 22!

1he order subject-verb is described by uemetrius |cc. 199 as natural
(q uoiiq t(i), and noun-verb by uionysius ccmp. \cru. as tp uoci
cnocvov. lut any inclination which the statistician may leel to
welcome the ancient critics as allies may lalter when he considers
their reasons. uemetrius, speaking specilically ol narrative, says that
the subject-matter (to nc o) ol a sentence should be stated lirst,
and o to0to cotiv second, which is not quite the same as saying that
the syntactical subject precedes the syntactical predicate.

uovers approach is not a very uselul way ol dealing with ancient
theory. lis misunderstanding seems to be caused by the lact that he
is working within the paradigm ol a syntactical approach: although
he admits that syntactical rules ol oreek word order cannot be
established, it seems that in his interpretation ol uemetrius he is
guided by the syntactical lramework.
!!
le lirst misinterprets
uemetrius as saying that the subject should precede the verb.
1hen, he seems to think that this would actually be welcome support
lor modern views. linally, he is disappointed again when it turns out
that uemetrius actually discusses the order ol to nc o and o to0to
cotiv.
!4
le does not consider the possibility that this might in lact be
a helplul idea. 1his example clearly illustrates the dangers ol
rational reconstruction, the interpretation ol ancient theory lor
modern purposes.
!

many cases he starts his clauses with the topic, so l would not agree with weils
accusation ol inconsistency. One might object that uemetrius does not always start
with a nominative or an accusative, but uemetrius lormulates tnis rule only lor
narratives (toi iqy(eoiv), and not lor treatises on style. On weil and his relation
to uemetrius and later linguists, see below (section ).

!2
uover (1960: 9).

!!
8ee uover (1960: 2-!1).

!4
llsewhere, uover (1960: !4) uses the expression to nc o lor the subject-
matter, but there he does not reler to uemetrius.

!
ln a recent article on word order in stichic verse, lraser (2002) brielly relers to
uemetrius and he interprets to nc o as the topic. lowever he is not very
interested in uemetrius views, presumably because his approach is syntactic rather
than pragmatic. lraser argues that word order is based partly on syntactic aspects,
partly on prosodic prominence, and partly on the size ol words. le rejects the
pragmatic approach ol both uemetrius and uik.
6 quinti|ian cn wcrJ orJcr

ln 1990, linkster remarked that the study ol latin word order was
still relatively underdeveloped.
!6
1he standard explanation is that
latin has a basic 8(ubject) O(bject) V(erb) order, but linkster has
warned that there is in lact not much evidence.
!
A particular
problem concerns the linal position ol the latin sentence.
1raditional grammars point out that the verb is normally lound at
the end ol the sentence, although this tendency is not equally strong
in dillerent authors.
!8
On the other hand, they also state that the
linal position is sometimes used lor constituents that have more
cmpnasis than other constituents.
!9
ln his atin 5yntax anJ 5cmantics,
linkster examines the linal position ol the sentence in a number ol
ciceros letters. le concludes that when the linal constituent is not a
verb, it is in most cases a locus constituent, but he adds that one
should also examine whether the verbs that take the linal position
also have locus lunction.
40

Quintilian struggles with the same problem concerning the linal
position ol the latin sentence.
41
le states that one should normally
end the sentence with a verb (nst. crat. 9.4.26), although one could
change this order lor the sake ol rhythm.

[6] Quintilian, lnst. 9.4.24-26
llla nimia quorundam luit obseruatio, ut uocabula uerbis, uerba rursus
aduerbiis, nomina adpositis et pronomina nomin-ibus essent priora:
nam lit contra quoque lrequenter non indecore. Nec non et illud
nimiae superstitionis, uti quaeque sint tempore, ea lacere etiam

!6
linkster (1990: 16!). l regret that the important new book by uevine &
8tephens (2006) appeared too late lor me to include it in my discussion ol latin
word order. uevine & 8tephens pay close attention to pragmatic categories. 1hey
distinguish locus (strong and weak), topic (strong and weak) and tail (2006: 14).
larlier studies on latin word order include the work by ue }ong (1989 and 1994) and
lanhuis (1981 and 1982), who adopts the lramework ol the lrague 8chool (see
below, section ) and deals with the communicative organization ol the inlormation
within the sentence.

!
linkster (1991: 0).

!8
According to lanhuis (1982: 14), the verb in classical latin is linal by literary
convention.

!9
linde (192!: 18): letonte worte verdrngen das V[erbum] olt vom 8atzende.

40
linkster (1990: 18).

41
lor Quintilians views on word order, see also ue }onge (2006: 284-90) and the
literature mentioned there.
ordine priora, non quin lrequenter sit hoc melius, sed quia interim
plus ualent ante gesta ideoque leuioribus superponenda sunt. Verbo
sensum cludere multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est: in uerbis
enim sermonis uis est. 8i id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut
lit apud summos oraecos latinosque oratores lrequentissime. 8ine
dubio erit omne quod non cludet hyperbaton, sed ipsum hoc inter
tropos uel liguras, quae sunt uirtutes, receptum est.

1he rule given by some theorists, that nouns should precede verbs,
verbs adverbs, nouns adjectives, and pronouns nouns, is much too
rigid, lor the contrary order is olten excellent. Another piece ol gross
superstition is the idea that as things come lirst in time, so they
should also come lirst in order. lt is not that this is not lrequently the
better course, but earlier events are sometimes more important and
so have to be given a position ol climax over the less signilicant. ll
composition allows, it is much best to end with a verb, lor the lorce ol
language is in the verbs. ll this proves harsh, the principle will give
way to rhythm, as olten happens in the greatest orators, both oreek
and latin. Ol course, every verb which does not come at the end will
give us a hyperbaton, but this itsell counts as a trope or a ligure, and
these are good leatures. (1ranslation kussell)

linkster has rightly pointed out that Quintilians observation is
normative and not descriptive.
42
Nevertheless, the rhetoricians
account may be helplul. lis argument lor the placement ol verbs is
pragmatic rather than syntactical: he says that verbs should take the
linal position because the lorce ol language (scrmcnis uis) is in the
verbs. 1he idea that verbs express the uis scrmcnis also appears in
the lirst book ol Quintilians work. ln his survey ol grammatical
teaching, Quintilian tells us that Aristotle and 1heodectes listed only
three parts ol speech, namely verbs ((ete), nouns (ovoete) and
conjunctions (ouvcooi). le points out that they made these
distinctions evidently since they thought that the lorce ol language
(uim scrmcnis) is in the verbs, and the substance (matcriam) in the
nouns, because the one is what we say, the other is what we speak
about (uia a|tcrum cst ucJ |cuimur, a|tcrum Jc uc |cuimur).
4!
lere,

42
linkster (1991: 0).

4!
Quintilian, nst. 1.4.18: \ctcrcs cnim, ucrum jucrunt Aristctc|cs ucuc atuc
1nccJcctcs, ucrua mcJc ct ncmina ct ccnuincticncs traJiJcrunt, uiJc|icct ucJ in ucruis uim
scrmcnis, in ncminiuus matcriam (uia a|tcrum cst ucJ |cuimur, a|tcrum Jc uc
|cuimur), in ccnuincticniuus autcm ccmp|cxum ccrum cssc iuJicaucrunt. larlier writers,
including also Aristotle and 1heodectes, listed only verbs, nouns and conjunctions,

we again recognise a distinction that looks like the modern one
between 1opic (Jc uc |cuimur) and comment (ucJ |cuimur), this
distinction is connected to the one between matcria (substance,
subject) and uis scrmcnis. lt should be noted that the term matcria is
also used to designate the topic or theme ol a speech or treatise.
44

Quintilians analysis ol the early oreek use ol the terms voe, qe
and ouvcoo largely corresponds to modern explanations. llatos
terms voe and qe have indeed been interpreted as topic and
locus:
4
it would be correct to state that the voe (appellation)
names something, while the qe (attribute) says something about
it.
46

what is most striking in Quintilians account ol word order is that
he argues that verbs take the linal position in latin uccausc they
express the lorce ol language (scrmcnis uis) or, in other words, they
designate that which we say (ucJ |cuimur). ln our modern
terminology, we might say that verbs take the linal position because
they are in many cases the locus constituents. Quintilian seems to
argue, then, (again in modern terminology) that it is olten the
predicate that imparts the most salient inlormation in a sentence
and that tnis is the reason that the verb takes the linal position.
lowever, the locus constituent is ol course not always a verb.
Quintilian argues that a word that carries powerlul signilicance
(ucncmcns scnsus) should be placed in c|ausu|a (at the end ol the
sentence):

[] Quintilian, lnst. 9.4.29-!0
8aepe tamen est uehemens aliquis sensus in uerbo, quod si in media
parte sententiae latet, transire intentionem et obscurari
circumiacentibus solet, in clausula positum adsignatur auditori et
inligitur, quale illud est ciceronis: ut tibi necesse esset in conspectu
populi komani uomere postridie. 1ransler hoc ultimum: minus
ualebit. Nam totius ductus hic est quasi mucro, ut per se loeda

evidently since they thought that the lorce ol language is in the verbs, and the
substance in the nouns (because the one is what we say, the other is what we speak
about), while the conjunctions provided the connections between them.
(1ranslation adapted lrom kussell).

44
8ee cicero, or. 119, Quintilian, nst. 1.pr.!.

4
8luiter (199!: 1!1).

46
8ee 8edley (200!: 162-4).
uomendi necessitas iam nihil ultra expectantibus hanc quoque
adiceret delormitatem, ut cibus teneri non posset postridie.

lowever, there is olten a powerlul signilicance in a single word, il this
is then concealed in the middle ol a sentence, it tends to escape
attention and be overshadowed by its surroundings, whereas il it is
placed at the end it is impressed upon the hearer and lixed in his
mind, as in ciceros [lhil. 2.6!] so that you were obliged to vomit in
the sight ol the koman people the day alter. move the last word and it
will lose its lorce. 1his is the sharp end ol the whole passage, as it
were: Antonys need to vomit, disgusting in itsell, acquires the lurther
hideousness not expected by the audience that he could not keep
his lood down the day alter. (1ranslation kussell)

ll a word is placed at the end, it is impressed upon the hearer and
lixed in his mind. Quintilians account ol word order might be taken
as support lor the view that the linal position in the latin sentence is
the position lor locus constituents. Ol course, it is much too early to
draw lar-reaching conclusions lrom this briel discussion. l have not
argued that the study ol ancient theory could replace modern
statistic research. lowever, Quintilians account at least suggests
that pragmatic lactors deserve to be taken into account with regard
to latin word order, just as they have successlully been applied to
the study ol oreek word order.
4

8ctwccn ucmctrius anJ uik

ln the loregoing sections, l have discussed some similarities between
ancient rhetorical views on word order on the one hand and modern
pragmatic ideas on the other. As l have pointed out, ancient rhetoric
and lunctional orammar share two characteristics in particular:
they pay due attention to the communicative role ol language, and
they deal with larger texts rather than with isolated sentences. lt is
not a coincidence that the approaches ol rhetoricians and modern
linguists are similar in these respects. ln lact, it is possible to draw a
historical line between uemetrius and uik, which involves at least

4
8ee now uevine & 8tephens (2006).
the classical scholar and linguist lenri weil (1818-1909) and the
lrague 8chool ol linguistics.
48

ln 1844, lenri weil published his inlluential thesis uc |crJrc Jcs
mcts Jans |cs |anucs ancicnncs ccmparccs aux |anucs mcJcrncs.
49

Although he criticises uemetrius lor using exaggerated expressions
and lor being inconsistent with his own theory, weil seems to have
been inlluenced (directly or indirectly) by uemetrius and other
ancient rhetoricians.
0
where uemetrius, in his analysis ol
1hucydides 1.24.1, distinguishes between the topic ol the statement
and o to0to cotiv (what it is), weil argues that a proposition
consists ol the subject and the attribute. concerning the logical
order ol words, weil states the lollowing: we are obliged to express
lirst the subject and then the attribute under penalty ol violating the
logical order.
1
8till, weil thinks that the real order ol words is
independent ol logic: his basic principle is that word order is the
order ol ideas (le marche des ides):
2
general ideas are stated
belore special ideas, the given inlormation precedes the new
inlormation: [l]t was necessary to lean on something present and
known, in order to reach out to something less present, nearer, or
unknown. 1here is then a point ol departure, an initial notion which
is equally present to him who speaks and to him who hears, which
lorms, as it were, the ground upon which the two intelligences meet,
and another part ol discourse which lorms the statement
(|cncnciaticn), properly so called.
!
lt is clear that weils point ol
departure corresponds to uemetrius topic (to nc o).
lnterestingly, weil mentions the same examples that uemetrius cites

48
l wish to thank kutger Allan lor his valuable suggestions concerning the
relationship between lunctional orammar and early modern linguistics.

49
laris, }oubert. ln 188, charles w. 8uper published an lnglish translation ol
this work. l reler to the new edition ol this lnglish translation by Aldo 8caglione
(Amsterdam 198). On weil and his views on word order, see also 8caglione (192:
!!8-4).

0
lor his criticism on uemetrius, see weil (198 [1844]: 14). cl. n. !1 above. weil
(198 [1844]: 1) acknowledges his debt to the lrench grammarians leauze and
latteux, who were in their turn deeply inlluenced by ancient rhetorical theories.
8ee 8caglione (192: 28-4). latteux 1raitc Jc |a ccnstructicn cratcirc (16!) includes
a translation ol uionysius ol lalicarnassus on ccmpcsiticn.

1
weil (198 [1844]: 22).

2
weil (198 [1844]: 21-1).

!
weil (198 [1844]: 29).
(albeit without mentioning the rhetorician as the source lor these
quotations). ln weils treatise, 1hucydides 1.24.1 (lpidamnos is a
city...) illustrates the view that the order ol words is the marche des
ides.
4
lis explanation ol the second example, lomers coti noii
Tuq (there is a city lphyre), is dillerent lrom uemetrius
analysis: l propose to tell you something that you do not yet know
or that you are supposed not to know (otherwise l should not tell it),
it is evident that l must lay hold on something that you already
know, that l must make a beginning, be it only lor the lorms sake.
Lnlike uemetrius, who describes the word order coti noii Tuq as
the reverse (to cneiiv) ol 1hucydides 1.24.1, weil thinks that both
sentences display the march ol ideas, in which the general precedes
the more specilic. According to weil, this example starts with that
which is most general, most indispensable, but also most
insignilicant, namely with the idea ol existence pure and simple.

weils distinction between the two essential elements ol a
sentence was lurther developed in the twentieth century. ln 1928,
Ammann introduced the terms 1ncma and kncma.
6
ln the lrague
8chool ol linguistics, it was Vilm mathesius who introduced similar
notions and showed their importance to word order, in particular by
way ol a comparison between czech and lnglish.
ln his lunctional
8entence Analysis, mathesius explicitly relers to his predecessor
lenri weil, with whom he shares the lunctional approach to
syntax.
8
concerning the two pragmatic units in which a sentence
can be divided, mathesius uses various terms: 1he element about
which something is stated may be said to be the basis ol the
utterance or the theme, and what is stated about the basis is the
nucleus ol the utterance or the rheme.
9
mathesius concern with
clear communication reminds us ol uemetrius discussion ol word
order in the simple style: ll a sentence is to be lormulated clearly,
especially in writing, we should make a clear-cut distinction between

4
weil (198 [1844]: !4).

weil (198) [1844]: !!).

6
8ee Ammann ([1928]1969: 140-1).

8ee esp. mathesius (19: 81-), the lnglish translation ol mathesius (1961). On
1opic and locus in the lrague 8chool, see lajicov (1994), who also discusses
mathesius.

8
mathesius (19: 81).

9
mathesius (19: 81).
2!0 cA8llk c. ul }ONol
these two basic elements, i.e. we should employ a clear lunctional
sentence perspective.
60
lrom the latter statement, it is a relatively
small step to the lunctional orammar developed by 8imon uik
(198), who inspired lelma uiks work on oreek word order (199).
61

1here are ol course many dillerences between the exact ideas and
terminology ol the linguists mentioned above, which lie outside the
scope ol this article. ln lact, a historian ol linguistics should avoid
connecting the ideas ol linguists lrom dillerent schools and periods
without paying close attention to their respective historical
contexts. lowever, it seems justilied to hold that all scholars
mentioned share an interest in the communicative lunction ol
language as an important lactor in the explanation ol word order.
1hus, lrom a modern perspective, lenri weil and Vilm mathesius
can be considered links in a historical chain that connects uemetrius
and lelma uik.
62

8 ccnc|usicn

ln many respects, ancient rhetorical theory loreshadows current
linguistic approaches to classical texts: the ancient rhetoricians
investigate how grammar contributes to literary ellects, and, unlike
the grammarians, they pay attention to the structure ol a complete
discourse. l have shown that close analysis ol ancient theory can
contribute to our understanding ol linguistic problems, in particular
that ol oreek and latin word order. Ancient theory cannot oller
decisive answers to our modern questions, but l do think that it can
be helplul to reconsider the results obtained by modern research by
comparing these results with ancient views on language and
literature. lt is an important condition lor this approach to ancient
theory that we pay attention to its historical context: rational

60
mathesius (19: 82).

61
uik (199a: ! n. !) relers to the lrague 8chool ol linguistics when sketching
the history ol the lunctional paradigm.

62
lut the relations between various linguists are ol course more complex than
this necessarily briel overview might suggest. lelma uik (199: 29-81) discusses
her predecessors and devotes a number ol pages to the pragmatic approach ol
loeple (1940), who was clearly inlluenced by weil (1844).
lkOm ulml1klL8 1O ull 2!1
reconstruction cannot do without historical reconstruction. lor this
reason, uovers discussion ol uemetrius was unsatislactory.
l have argued that the rhetorical accounts ol word order in
uemetrius and Quintilian support the modern views that have been
developed within the lramework ol lunctional orammar. 1he
similarity between the ancient rhetorical and the modern pragmatic
approach can be explained by the lact that both rhetoric and
lunctional orammar regard language primarily as an instrument ol
communication. consequently, both disciplines deal with larger
discourse units rather than with isolated sentences, and they locus
on the distribution ol inlormation within the sentence. 1his
linguistic approach to classical texts is characteristic ol both
uemetrius and uik.
6!

6!
l wish to thank lneke 8luiter lor her uselul suggestions. l am also gratelul to
maartje 8cheltens lor correcting my lnglish, in particular my word order.
2!2 cA8llk c. ul }ONol
Ancicnt scurccs

Aristotle: Aristctc|is Ars knctcrica recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit
w.u. koss, Oxlord 199.
uemetrius: ucmctrius on 5ty|c, edited and translated by u.c. lnnes, based on the
translation by w. khys koberts, in Aristct|c, cctics, cninus, on tnc 5uu|imc,
ucmctrius, on 5ty|c, cambridge, massachusetts J london, lngland 199.
Quintilian: quinti|ian, 1nc oratcrs Jucaticn, edited and translated by u.A. kussell,
cambridge, massachusetts J london, lngland 2001.

1rans|aticns

Aristotle: (1) Aristct|c, 1nc Art cj knctcric, with an lnglish translation by }.l. lreese,
cambridge, massachusetts J london, lngland 1926, (2) Aristct|c, on knctcric, A
1nccry cj civic uisccursc, newly translated, with introduction, notes, and
appendices by o.A. lennedy, New York J Oxlord 1991.
uemetrius: ucmctrius on 5ty|c, edited and translated by u.c. lnnes, based on the
translation by w. khys koberts, in Aristct|c, cctics, cninus, on tnc 5uu|imc,
ucmctrius, on 5ty|c, cambridge, massachusetts J london, lngland 199.
lerodotus: ucrcJctus, with an lnglish translation by A.u. oodley, london J New
York 1921.
lomer: ucmcr, |iaJ, with an lnglish translation by A.1. murray, revised by w.l.
wyatt, cambridge, massachusetts J london, lngland 1999.
Quintilian: quinti|ian, 1nc oratcrs Jucaticn, edited and translated by u.A. kussell,
cambridge, massachusetts J london, lngland 2001.

lllllOokAllY

Adams, m., (19), 5cpncc|cs tnc |aywrint, 1oronto.
Adema, 8., (2002), Voorgrond en achtergrond in de Acncs van Vergilius, 11wiA 6,
9-66.
, (2004), Van ligurant tot hooldrolspeler. let gebruik van het imperlectum in de
Acncis van Vergilius, ampas !, !!!-46.
, (200), 1he 1ense ol 8peech lndications in Vergils AcnciJ , in o. calboli (ed.),
atina inua| apcrs cn 6rammar, lX, 1, kome, 419-!1.
, (lorthc.), 1emporal bases and the use ol the narrative inlinitive in the Aeneid,
in rccccJins cj tnc Xtn ntcrnaticna| cc||cuium cn atin inuistics, lrussels.
Albrecht, m. von, (1999), kcman pic. An ntcrprctativc ntrcJucticn, leiden.
Allan, k.}., (200!), 1nc ViJJ|c \cicc in Ancicnt 6rcck. A 5tuJy in c|yscmy, Amsterdam.
Allan, w., (2001), uripiJcs. 1nc cni|Jrcn cj ucrac|cs, warminster.
Almeida, m., (199), 1ime in Narratives, in }.l. uuchan, o.A. lruder, & l.l. lewitt
(eds.), ucixis in Narrativc. A ccnitivc 5cicncc crspcctivc, lillsdale, N}, 19-89.
Ammann, l., (1969
!
), uic mcnscn|icnc kcJc. 5pracnpni|cscpniscnc 0ntcrsucnuncn,
uarmstadt [lirst edition laden 192-1928].
lache, c., (198), 1nc orJcr cj rcmcJijyin AJjcctivcs in rcscnt-Jay n|isn, Odense.
lain, u., (19), Audience Address in oreek 1ragedy, cq 2, 1!-2.
, (198), 8ome kellections on the lllusion in oreek 1ragedy, 8c5 !4, 1-14.
lakker, l.}., (1988), inuistics anJ lcrmu|as in ucmcr. 5ca|arity anJ tnc ucscripticn cj tnc
artic|c per, AmsterdamJlhiladelphia.
, (199!), loundaries, 1opics and the 8tructure ol uiscourse. An lnvestigation ol
the Ancient oreek larticle ul, 5tuJics in anuac 1, 2-!11.
, (ed.), (199a), 6rammar as ntcrprctaticn. 6rcck itcraturc in its inuistic ccntcxts,
leiden.
, (199b), cctry in 5pcccn. ora|ity anJ ucmcric uisccursc, lthaca, N.Y.Jlondon.
, (199c), Verbal Aspect and mimetic uescription in 1hucydides, in lakker
(199a), -4.
, (1999), lomeric OY1O5 and the loetics ol ueixis, c 94, 1-19.
, (200), cintin at tnc ast. lrcm lcrmu|a tc crjcrmancc in ucmcric cctics,
cambridge, mAJlondon.
lakker, 8.}., (2000), uct curuik van nct luturum in |atc: tcmpcrcc| cj mcJaa|,
Lniversity ol oroningen (Lnpublished paper)
lal, m., (199
2
), Narratc|cy. ntrcJucticn tc tnc 1nccry cj Narrativc, 1orontoJ
lullaloJlondon.
larlow, 8.A., (1986), uripiJcs. 1rcjan wcmcn, warminster.
larrett, }., (2002), 5tacJ Narrativc, cctics anJ tnc Vcsscncr in 6rcck 1racJy,
lerkeleyJlos AngelesJlondon.
lasset, l., (199), cs cmp|cis pcripnrastiucs Ju vcruc rcc r``rtv, lyon.
lehaghel, O, (19!2), ucutscnc 5yntax: cinc cscnicnt|icnc uarstc||un, Vol lV:
wcrtstc||un, cricJcnuau, leidelberg.
lernbeck, l.}., (196), 8ccuacntuncn zur uarstc||unsart in oviJs Vctamcrpncscn,
munich.
liber, u., 8. }ohansson, o. leech, 8. conrad, & l. linegan (eds.), (1999), cnman
6rammar cj 5pckcn anJ writtcn n|isn, larlow.
2!4 lllllOokAllY
lolkestein, A.m., (2000), uiscourse Organization and Anaphora in latin, in 8.
lerring, l.1. van keenen, & l. 8chosler (eds), 1cxtua| aramctcrs in o|Jcr
anuacs, Amsterdam, 10-!.
lonheim, l., (1982), 1nc Narrativc VcJcs. 1ccnniucs cj tnc 5ncrt 5tcry, cambridge.
lrock, k., (200!), Authorial Voice and Narrative management in lerodotus, in
uerow & larker (200!), !-16.
luijs, m., (200), c|ausc ccmuinin in Ancicnt 6rcck Narrativc uisccursc. 1nc uistriuuticn
cj 5uuc|auscs anJ articipia| c|auscs in Xcncpncn's lellenica anJ Anabasis,
mnemosyne 8upplement 260, leiden.
casparis, c.l., (19), 1cnsc witncut 1imc. 1nc rcscnt 1cnsc in Narraticn, lern.
chale, w., (1982), lntegration and lnvolvement in 8peaking, writing and Oral
literature, in u. 1annen (ed.), (1982), 5pckcn anJ writtcn anuac. xp|crin
ora|ity anJ itcracy, Norwood, N}, !-4.
, (1994), uisccursc, ccnscicusncss, anJ 1imc. 1nc l|cw anJ uisp|accmcnt cj ccnscicus
xpcricncc in 5pcakin anJ writin, chicagoJlondon.
chantraine, l., (196!), 6rammairc ncmcriuc, 1ome ll: 5yntaxc, laris.
comparetti, u., (188), Vuscc ita|ianc Ji anticnita c|assica, l, 2!!-8.
, (1894), le leggi di oortyna e le altre iscrizioni arcaiche cretesi, Vcnumcnti
anticni puuu|icati pcr cura Jc||a kca|c AccaJcmia Jci incci, lll, 9!-242.
comrie, l., (196), Aspcct. An ntrcJucticn tc tnc 5tuJy cj \crua| Aspcct anJ kc|atcJ
rcu|cms, cambridge.
connor, w.k., (198), Narrative uiscourse in 1hucydides, in m.l. }ameson (ed.), 1nc
6rcck uistcrians, itcraturc anJ uistcry. apcrs rcscntcJ tc A.. kauuitscnck,
8tanlord, 1-1.
crabbe, A., (1981), 8tructure and content in Ovids Vctamcrpncscs, in Aujstic unJ
NicJcran Jcr kcmiscncn wc|t, ll, !1.4, 224-!2.
crespo, l., }. de la Villa, & A. k. kevuelta (eds.), (2006), wcrJ c|asscs anJ kc|atcJ 1cpics
in Ancicnt 6rcck. rccccJins cj tnc ccnjcrcncc cn 6rcck 5yntax anJ wcrJ c|asscs nc|J
in VaJriJ cn !o-.!, junc .1, louvain-la-Neuve.
cropp, m.}., (2000), uripiJcs. pnicnia in 1auris, warminster.
crotty, l., (1982), 5cn anJ Acticn. 1nc \ictcry oJcs cj inJar, laltimore.
cuddon, }.A., (1991
!
), uicticnary cj itcrary 1crms anJ itcrary 1nccry, Oxlord.
cutrer, m., (1994), 1imc anJ 1cnsc in Narrativc anJ vcryJay anuac (uiss. Lniversity
ol calilornia, 8an uiego).
uanek, o., (1992), 7ur lrologrede der Aphrodite im uippc|ytus des luripides, w5 10,
19-!.
uareste, k., l. laussoulier , & 1. keinach, (189), kccuci| Jcs inscripticns juriJiucs
rccucs, l
re
srie, laris 1891-9, !2-91.
uenniston, }.u., (194
2
), 6rcck artic|cs, Oxlord.
uepraetere, l., (199), On the Necessity ol uistinguishing between (Ln)boundedness
and (A)telicity, inuistics anJ ni|cscpny, 18, 1-19.
uerow, l., & k. larker (eds.), (200!), ucrcJctus anJ nis wcr|J, Oxlord.
uevereux, o., (1966), 1he lxploitation ol Ambiguity in lindarus o. !.2, knV 109,
289-98.
uevine, A.m., & l.u. 8tephens, (1999), uisccntinucus 5yntax. uypcruatcn in 6rcck, New
YorkJOxlord.
, (2006), atin wcrJ orJcr. 5tructurcJ Vcanin anJ njcrmaticn, New YorkJOxlord.
uik, l., (199), wcrJ orJcr in Ancicnt 6rcck. A ramatic Acccunt cj wcrJ orJcr \ariaticn
in ucrcJctus, Amsterdam.
, (199), lnterpreting Adjective losition in lerodotus, in l.}. lakker (199a), -
6.
uik, 8.c., (198), luncticna| 6rammar, AmsterdamJNew YorkJOxlord.
lllllOokAllY 2!
, (199a), 1nc 1nccry cj luncticna| 6rammar, lart 1: 1nc 5tructurc cj tnc c|ausc (2
nd
,
revised edition, ed. by l. lengeveld), lerlinJNew York.
, (199b), 1nc 1nccry cj luncticna| 6rammar, lart 2: ccmp|cx anJ ucrivcJ
ccnstructicns (2
nd
, revised edition, ed. by l. lengeveld), lerlinJNew York.
uscher, 1., (191), oviJius narrans. 5tuJicn zur rzn|kunst oviJs in Jcn
metamorphosen, leidelberg.
uover, l.}., (1960), 6rcck wcrJ orJcr, cambridge.
, (199), 1nc vc|uticn cj 6rcck rcsc 5ty|c, Oxlord.
ury, l., (198!), 1he movement ol Narrative 1ime, jcurna| cj itcrary 5cmantics, 19-!.
uuhoux, Y., (2000), c vcruc rcc ancicn. l|cmcnts Jc mcrpnc|cic ct Jc syntaxc nistcriucs.
ucuxicmc cJiticn, rcvuc ct aumcntcc (libliothque des cahiers de llnstitut de
linguistique de louvain, 104), louvain-la-Neuve.
, (2001). laspect verbal dans les dialectes grecs et ailleurs. les cis Jc 6crtync
compares a lysias et lsocrate (communication, encore indite, au colloque uic
a|triccniscncn uia|cktc. wcscn unJ wcrJcn, lerlin, septembre 2001).
lasterling, l.l., (1982), 5cpncc|cs 1racniniac, cambridge.
lngland, l.l., ([1886] 1960), 1nc pnicncia amcn tnc 1aurians cj uripiJcs, london.
lrbse, l., (1984), 5tuJicn zum rc|c Jcr curipiJciscncn 1racJic, lerlinJNew York.
lrnst, L., (200!), Ordo, in o. Leding (ed.), uistcriscncs wcrtcruucn Jcr knctcrik, land
6, 1bingen, 416-2!.
labricius, l., (188), Atncniscnc Vittnci|uncn, lX, 188, p. !6!-84.
lleischman, 8., (1990), 1cnsc anJ Narrativity. lrcm VcJicva| crjcrmancc tc VcJcrn
licticn, london.
lludernik, m., (1991), 1he listorical lresent 1ense Yet Again. 1ense 8witching and
Narrative uynamics in Oral and Quasi-Oral 8torytelling, 1cxt 11, !6-98.
, (1996), 1cwarJs a Natura| Narratc|cy, londonJNew York.
lowler, u., (199), Vergilian Narrative. 8torytelling, in c. martindale (ed.), 1nc
camuriJc ccmpanicn tc \cri|, cambridge.
lox, l., (198!), 1he uiscourse lunction ol the larticiple in Ancient oreek, in l.
llein-Andreu (ed.), uisccursc crspcctivcs cn 5yntax, New York.
lrnkel, l., (19), uie 7eitaullassung in der lrhgriechischen literatur, in wcc
unJ lcrmcn Jcs jrunriccniscncn ucnkcns, mnchen, 1-22 (= 7citscnrijt jur Astnctik
2, 9-118).
, (1961), 8chrullen in den 8cholien zu lindars Nemeen und Olympien !,
ucrmcs 89, !94-9.
lraser, l., (2002), word Order in oreek 8tichic Verse. 8ubject, Verb, and Object,
6|ctta 8, 1-101.
lriedman, N., (19), loint ol View in liction. 1he uevelopment ol a critical
concept, VA 0, 1160-84.
lugier, l., & }.m. corbin, (19), coordination et classes lonctionelles dans le
syntagme nominal latin, 85 2, 24-!.
lugier, l., (198!), le syntagme nominal en latin classique, in w. laase (ed.),
Aujstic unJ NicJcran Jcr rcmiscncn wc|t, 29, l, lerlin, 212-69.
oarcia kamn, }.l., (2001). lmpratil et inlinitil prc impcrativc dans les textes grecs
dialectaux: les lois de oortyne, \cruum 2!, !41-60.
oenette, o., (192), liurcs , laris.
oildersleeve, l.l., ([1900] 1980), 5yntax cj c|assica| 6rcck, Oxlord.
oivn, 1., (199), 5yntax anJ 5cmantics, 12: uisccursc anJ 5yntax, New York.
oodley, A.u., (19!8), uistcrics, larvard.
ooldhill, 8., (1986), kcaJin 6rcck 1racJy, cambridge.
ooodwin, w.w., (1889), 5yntax cj tnc VccJs anJ 1cnscs cj tnc 6rcck \cru, london.
oreel, l. de, (2004), uct curuik van anapncra uij ivius, oviJius cn 5cncca (mA 1hesis
Vrije Lniversiteit, Amsterdam).
2!6 lllllOokAllY
orube, o.m.A., ([1941] 1961
2
), 1nc urama cj uripiJcs, london.
ouarducci, m., (190), nscripticncs crcticac lV: 1itu|i 6crtynii, kome.
lajicov, l., (1994), 1opic J locus and kelated kesearch, in lh.A. luelsdorll (ed.),
1nc rauc 5cncc| cj 5tructura| anJ luncticna| inuistics. A 5ncrt ntrcJucticn,
AmsterdamJlhiladelphia, 24-.
lamilton, k., (194), pinikicn. 6cncra| lcrm in tnc oJcs cj inJar, 1he lagueJlaris.
, (198), Announced lntrances in oreek 1ragedy, u5cn 82, 6!-82.
larrison, }.l., (1912), 1ncmis. A 5tuJy in tnc 5ccia| oriins cj 6rcck kc|iicn, cambridge.
larrison, 1., (2000), uivinity anJ uistcry. 1nc kc|iicn cj ucrcJctus, Oxlord.
, (200!), lrophecy in reverse7 lerodotus and the Origins ol listory, in uerow
& larker (200!), 2!-.
leiden, l., (1989), 1raic knctcric. An ntcrprctaticn cj 5cpncc|cs 1rachiniae, New York.
letzron, k., (198), On the kelative Order ol Adjectives, in l. 8eiler (ed.), anuac
0nivcrsa|s. apcrs jrcm tnc ccnjcrcncc at 6ummcruacn/cc|cnc oct. 1-o, !-e, 16-84.
lornblower, 8., (198a), 1nucyJiJcs, laltimore.
, (198b), Narratology and Narrative 1echniques in 1hucydides, in 8.
lornblower (ed.), 6rcck uistcricrapny, Oxlord, 1!1-66.
, (2002
!
), 1nc 6rcck wcr|J, New York.
lulton, A.O., (1969), 1he lrologues ol 8ophocles, 6rcccc kcmc 16, 49-9.
lumbert, }., (1960
!
), 5yntaxc rccuc, laris.
lunter, k.l., (198), 1nc Ncw ccmcJy cj 6rcccc anJ kcmc, cambridge.
lllig, l., (19!2), 7ur lcrm Jcr pinJariscncn rzacn|un, lornaJleipzig.
lmhol, m., (19), 8cmcrkuncn zu Jcn rc|ccn Jcr scpnck|ciscncn unJ curipiJciscncn
1racJicn, winterthur.
}ebb, k.c., (190!), 5cpncc|cs. |ays. 1racniniac, cambridge.
}ong, l.}.l. de, k. Nnlist, & A. lowie (eds.), (2004), Narratcrs, Narratccs, anJ Narrativcs,
leiden.
}ong, l.}.l. de, ([198] 2004
2
), Narratcrs anJ lcca|izcrs. 1nc rcscntaticn cj tnc 5tcry in tnc
|iaJ, Amsterdam.
, (1991), Narrativc in urama. 1nc Art cj tnc uripiJcan Vcsscncr-5pcccn, leiden.
, (lorthc.), 8ophocles, in l.}.l. de }ong, & k. Nnlist (eds.), 1imc in Ancicnt 6rcck
itcraturc, 8tudies in Ancient oreek Narrative 2, leiden.
}ong, }.k. de, (198!), word Order within latin Noun lhrases, in l. linkster (ed.),
atin inuistics anJ inuistic 1nccry, Amsterdam, 1!1-44.
, (1989), 1he losition ol the latin 8ubject, in o. calboli (ed.), 5uucrJinaticn anJ
otncr 1cpics in atin. rccccJins cj tnc 1nirJ cc||cuium cn atin inuistics,
8c|cna, !- Apri| !-o, Amsterdam, 21-40.
, (1994), word Order in catos uc Aricu|tura, in }. lerman (ed.), inuistic 5tuJics
cn atin. 5c|cctcJ apcrs jrcm tnc e
tn
ntcrnaticna| cc||cuium cn atin inuistics
(8uJapcst, .1-. Varcn !--!), Amsterdam, 91-101.
}onge, c.c. de, (2001), Natura artis maistra. Ancient khetoricians, orammarians and
lhilosophers on Natural word Order, in 1. van der wouden & l. lroekhuis
(eds.), inuistics in tnc Nctncr|anJs 2001, AV1 lublications 18, 19-66.
, (200), uionysius ol lalicarnassus and the method ol metathesis, cq , 46!-
80.
, (2006), 8ctwccn 6rammar anJ knctcric. uicnysius cj ua|icarnassus cn anuac,
inuistics, anJ itcraturc (uiss. leiden).
lamerbeek, }.c., (199), 1nc |ays cj 5cpncc|cs. ccmmcntarics . 1nc 1racniniac, leiden.
lirkwood, o.m., ([198] 191
2
), A 5tuJy cj 5cpncc|can urama, lthaca, N.Y.
llug, w., (1999), Lber den oebrauch der lrzhltempora in einer metamorphose
Ovids: lygmalion: X, 24!-29, in w. 8chubert (ed.), oviJ, wcrk unJ wirkun.
lcstauc jur Vicnac| vcn A|urccnt zum e. 6cuurtsta, lranklurt am main, 4-6.
lhnken, A., (191), uic lunkticn Jcs Vytncs uci inJar, lerlin.
lllllOokAllY 2!
, (198!), mythical chronology and 1hematic coherence in lindars 1hird
Olympian Ode, u5c 8, 49-6!.
lraus, c.8., (1991), Aoyo cv cot e_eio. 8tories and 8torytelling in 8ophocles
1racniniac, 1AA 121, -98.
lroon, c.l.m. & k. kisselada (2004), amuc Jics injanJa aJcrat. 1ime management,
historiogralie en de geschiedenis van een narratieve techniek, ampas !, 191-202.
lroon, c.l.m., (199), uisccursc artic|cs in atin. A 5tuJy cj nam, enim, autem, vero,
anJ at, Amsterdam.
, (2000), let ene verhaal is het andere niet. len taalkundige kijk op teksttype in de
latijnse literatuur, ampas !!, 211-!4.
, (2002), low to write a ohost 8tory7 A linguistic View on Narrative modes in
lliny . .2, in l. 8awicki & u. 8halev (ed.), ucnum 6rammaticum. 5tuJics in
atin anJ cc|tic inuistics in ucncur cj uannan kcscn, leuven, 189-200.
, (2006), ue lotograal vertelt. 1ekstsamenhang in Ovidius Vctamcrpncscn,
ampas !9, 226-4.
lrummen, l., (1991), yrscs uymncn: lcst|icnc 6ccnwart a|s \craussctzun cincr
inJarintcrprctaticn, lerlinJNew York.
lhner, k. & l. oerth, (1898-1904), Ausjunr|icnc 6rammatik Jcr riccniscncn 5pracnc,
1eil ll: 5atz|cnrc, lannover.
lurke, l., (199!), 1he lconomy ol ludos, in c. uougherty & l. lurke (eds.), cu|tura|
cctics in Arcnaic 6rcccc. cu|t, crjcrmancc, c|itics, cambridge, 1!1-6!.
labov, w., (192), anuac in tnc nncr city, lhiladelphia.
langacker, k.w., (1991), lcunJaticns cj ccnitivc 6rammar, Vol. ll: ucscriptivc
App|icaticn, 8tanlord.
, (2001), 1he lnglish lresent 1ense, n|isn anuac anJ inuistics, 212.
lee, l.l., (196), uripiJcs. 1rcaJcs, london.
, (199), uripiJcs. cn, warminster.
leech, o.N. & m.l. 8hort, (1981), 5ty|c in licticn. A inuistic ntrcJucticn tc n|isn
licticna| rcsc, londonJNew York.
lehnus, l., (1981), inJarc. o|impicnc, milano
leo, l., (1908), ucr Vcnc|c im urama. in 8citra zur riccniscn-rcmiscncn cctik,
ottingen.
lessing, l., ([169] 196!), uamuuriscnc uramaturic, 8tuttgart.
ltoublon, l., (1982), les verbes de mouvement en grec: de la mtaphore a
lauxiliarit, 6|ctta 60, 18-96.
levinsohn, 8.l., (198), 1cxtua| ccnnccticns in Acts, Atlanta.
linde, l., (192!), uie 8tellung des Verbs in der lateinischen lrosa, 6|ctta 12, 1!-8.
loeple, A., (1940), uic wcrtstc||un im riccniscncn 5prccnsatz (crk|rt an 5tuckcn aus
|atcn unJ VcnanJcr) (uiss. lreiburg).
longacre, k.l., (199), 1he laragraph as a orammatical Lnit, in oivn (199), 11-
!4.
, (198!), 1nc 6rammar cj uisccursc, New York.
lyons, }., (19), 5cmantics, cambridge.
magnien, V., (1912), c jutur rcc, 1ome ll: mp|cis ct criincs, laris.
march, }. (198), 1nc crcativc cct. 5tuJics cn tnc 1rcatmcnt cj Vytns in 6rcck cctry,
london.
martin, }.l., (1969), 8emantic ueterminants ol lrelerred Adjective Order, jcurna| cj
\crua| carnin anJ \crua| 8cnavicur 8, 69-04.
martina, A., (1980), ll lrologo delle 1rachinie, uicnisc 1, 48-9.
mathesius, V. (19), A luncticna| Ana|ysis cj rcscnt uay n|isn cn a 6cncra| inuistic
8asis, 1he lague.
Nagy, o. (1992), lomeric Questions, 1AA 122, 1-60.
, (1996), cctry as crjcrmancc: ucmcr anJ 8cycnJ, cambridge.
2!8 lllllOokAllY
Nestle, w., (19!0), uic 5truktur Jcs inans in Jcr attiscncn 1racJic, 8tuttgart.
Oldsj, l., (2001), 1cnsc anJ Aspcct in cacsars Narrativc, Lppsala.
Ophuijsen, }.m. van, (199!), OYN, AlA, ^l, 1OlNYN. 1he linguistic Articulation ol
Arguments in llatos nacJc, in 8icking & Van Ophuijsen (199!), 6-164.
lanhuis, u.o., (1981), word Order, oenre, Adstratum. 1he llace ol the Verb in
caesars 1opographical lxcursus, 6|ctta 9, 29-!08.
, (1982), 1nc ccmmunicativc crspcctivc in tnc 5cntcncc. A 5tuJy cj atin wcrJ orJcr,
Amsterdam.
llister, m., (1988), 1nc 1nccry anJ Ana|ysis cj urama, cambridge (oerman original lrom
19).
linkster, l., (198!), 1empus, Aspect and Aktionsart in latin (kecent 1rends 1961-
1981), Aujstic unJ NicJcran Jcr kcmiscncn wc|t., 29, 20-!19.
, (1990), atin 5yntax anJ 5cmantics, londonJNew York.
, (1991), lvidence lor 8VO in latin7, in k. wright (ed.), atin anJ tnc kcmancc
anuacs in tnc ar|y ViJJ|c Acs, london, 69-82.
, (1998), s tnc atin rcscnt tnc 0nmarkcJ, Ncutra| 1cnsc in tnc 5ystcm, in k.
kisselada (ed.), latin in Lse, Amsterdam, 6!-8!.
, (1999), 1he lresent 1ense in Virgils AcnciJ , Vncmcsync 2, 0-1.
lohlenz, m., ([19!0] 194
2
), uic riccniscnc 1racJic. Vit r|utcruncn, ottingen.
losner, k., (1986), lconicity in 8yntax. 1he Natural Order ol Adjectives, in l.
louissac, m. lerzleld, & k. losner (eds), ccnicity. ssays cn tnc Naturc cj cu|turc,
1bingen, !0-!.
lrince, o., (1980), lntroduction to the 8tudy ol the Narratee, in }.l. 1ompkins (ed.)
kcaJcr-kcspcnsc criticism. lrcm lcrma|ism tc cst-5tructura|ism, london, -2
[lrench original lrom 19!].
Quinn, l., (196!), 1he 1empo ol Vergilian lpic, in l. Quinn (ed.), atin xp|craticns,
london, 198-2!8.
, (1968), \iri|'s Aeneid. A critica| ucscripticn, london.
Quirk, k., 8. oreenbaum, o. leech, & }. 8vartvik, (192), A 6rammar cj ccntcmpcrary
n|isn, london.
keichenbach, l., (194), |cmcnts cj 5ymuc|ic cic, New York.
keinhardt, l., ([19!!] 194!
2
), 5cpnck|cs, lranklurt am main.
khys koberts, w., (1969), ucmctrius on 5ty|c. 1nc 6rcck 1cxt cj ucmctrius ue llocutione
(edited alter the laris manuscript), lildesheim.
kijksbaron, A., l.A. mulder, & o.c. wakker (eds.), 1988, n tnc lcctstcps cj kapnac|
kunncr, Amsterdam.
kijksbaron, A., (1986), 1he 1reatment ol the oreek middle Voice by the Ancient
orammarians, in l. }oly (ed.), ni|cscpnic Ju |anac ct rammairc Jans |antiuitc,
cahiers de lhilosophie Ancienne , lruxellesJorenoble, 42-44.
, (1988). 1he uiscourse lunction ol the lmperlect, in kijksbaron, mulder &
wakker (1988), 2!-4.
, (1989), Aristct|c, \cru Vcanin anJ luncticna| 6rammar. 1cwarJs a Ncw 1ypc|cy cj
5tatcs cj Ajjairs. witn an AppcnJix cn Aristct|cs uistincticn uctwccn kinesis anJ
energeia, Amsterdam.
, (ed.), (199), Ncw Apprcacncs tc 6rcck artic|cs. rccccJins cj tnc cc||cuium uc|J in
AmstcrJam, january !-e, !--e, tc ucncur c.j. kuijn cn tnc occasicn cj nis kctircmcnt,
Amsterdam 8tudies in classical lhilology , Amsterdam.
, (2002
!
a), 1nc 5yntax anJ 5cmantics cj tnc \cru in c|assica| 6rcck. An ntrcJucticn,
Amsterdam.
, (2002b), 1he Xenophon lactory. One lundred and lilty Years ol 8chool
lditions ol Xenophons Anauasis, in k. oibson & c.8. lraus (eds.), 1nc c|assica|
ccmmcntary, leiden, 2!-6.
lllllOokAllY 2!9
, (2006), On lalse listoric lresents in 8ophocles (and luripides), in l.}.l. de }ong
& A. kijksbaron (eds.), 5cpncc|cs anJ tnc 6rcck anuac. Aspccts cj uicticn, 5yntax,
anJ ramatics, leiden, 12-49.
kinger, m., (1998), |cctra anJ tnc mpty 0rn. Vctatncatcr anJ kc|c |ayin in 5cpncc|cs,
chapel lill.
kisselada, k., (1984), coordination and }uxtaposition ol Adjectives in the latin Nl,
6|ctta 62, 202-!1.
, (1998), And Now lor 8omething completely uillerent7 1emporal uiscourse
markers. latin nunc and lnglish ncw, in }.k. de }ong & A.m. lolkestein (ed.), on
atin. inuistic anJ itcrary 5tuJics in ucncur cj uarm inkstcr, Amsterdam, 10-
2.
kobbins, l. (1982), leracles, the lyperboreans and the lind, nccnix !6, 29-!0.
, (1984), lntimations ol lmmortality, in u. oerber (ed.), 6rcck cctry anJ
ni|cscpny. 5tuJics in ucncur cj ccnraJ wccJuury, chicago, 219-28.
konnet, o., (1969), 5cpncc|c, pcctc traiuc, laris.
kood, 1., (1998), 1nucyJiJcs. Narrativc anJ xp|anaticn, Oxlord.
korty, k., (1984), 1he listoriography ol lhilosophy. lour oenres, in k. korty, }.l.
8chneewind, & Q. 8kinner (eds.), ni|cscpny in uistcry. ssays cn tnc uistcricrapny
cj ni|cscpny, cambridge, 49-.
kuijgh, c.}., (191), Autcur Jc 1 cpiuc, Amsterdam.
, (198), keview lasset (199), inua 6, !2!-!!.
8caglione, A., (192), 1nc c|assica| 1nccry cj ccmpcsiticn jrcm its oriins tc tnc rcscnt. A
uistcrica| 5urvcy, chapell lill.
8chadewaldt, w., ([1926] 1966
2
), Vcnc|c unJ 5c|ustcsprcn. 0ntcrsucnuncn zur
lcrmcscnicntc Jcr 1racJic, lerlin.
8chlegel, A.w., (1809-11) \cr|csuncn uucr Jramatiscnc kunst unJ itcratur, leidelberg
(lngl. translation A ccursc cj ccturcs cn uramatic art anJ itcraturc, london 1846)
8chlicher, }.}., (19!1), 1he listorical 1enses and their lunction in latin, c 26, 46-
9.
8chmidt, l.w., (191), uer 8truktur des lingangs, in w. }ens (ed.), 8aujcrmcn Jcr
1racJic, mnchen, 1-46.
8chwinge, l.k., (1962), uic 5tc||un Jcr 1racninicrinncn im wcrk Jcs 5cpnck|cs,
ottingen.
8chwyzer, l. & A. uebrunner, (190), 6riccniscnc 6rammatik, land ll: 5yntax unJ
syntaktiscnc 5ti|istik, mnchen.
8edley, u., (200!), |atcs craty|us, cambridge.
8egal, c.l., (1964), ood and man in lindars lirst and 1hird Olympian Odes, u5c 68,
211-6.
8eiler, l., (198), uetermination, a lunctional uimension lor lnter-language
comparison, in l. 8eiler, anuac 0nivcrsa|s, 1bingen, !01-28.
8helmerdine, 8.c., (198), lindaric lraise and the 1nirJ o|ympian, u5c 91, 6-81.
8hopen, 1. (ed.), (198), anuac 1ypc|cy anJ 5yntactic ucscripticn, Vol. ll: ccmp|cx
ccnstructicns, cambridge.
8icking, c.m.}. & }.m. van Ophuijsen, (199!), 1wc 5tuJics in artic|c 0sac. ysias anJ
|atc, mnemosyne 8upplement 129, leiden.
8icking, c.m.}, & l. 8tork, (199), 1he orammar ol the 8o-called listoric lresent, in
l.}. lakker (199a), 1!1-69.
8icking, c.m.}., (1991), 1he uistribution ol Aorist and lresent 1ense 8tem lorms in
oreek, lspecially in the lmperative, 6|ctta 69, 14-4! and 14-0.
, (199!), uevices lor 1ext Articulation in lysias l and Xll, in 8icking & Van
Ophuijsen (199!), 1-66.
240 lllllOokAllY
, (1996), Aspect choice. 1ime kelerence or uiscourse lunction7, in c.m.}.
8icking & l. 8tork, (1996), 1wc 5tuJics in tnc 5cmantics cj tnc \cru in c|assica|
6rcck, mnemosyne 8upplement 160, 1-118.
8later, w.}., (198!), lyric Narrative. 8tructure and lrinciple, cA 2, 11-!2.
8lings, 8.k., (199), Adversative kelators between lL8l and lOl, in kijksbaron (199),
101-29.
, (2002a), Oral 8trategies in the language ol lerodotus, in l.}. lakker, l.}.l. de
}ong, & l. van wees (eds.), 8ri||s ccmpanicn tc ucrcJctus, leidenJlostonJ lln,
!-.
, (2002b), ln de vrouw, die ziet hem weggaan. Orale strategien in de taal van
lerodotus, ampas !, 2-4!.
8luiter, l., (1990), Ancicnt 6rammar in ccntcxt. ccntriuuticns tc tnc 5tuJy cj Ancicnt
inuistic 1ncunt, Amsterdam.
, (199!), Antieke grammatica. autonoom ol instrument7, in }. ooedegebuure
(ed.), Nicuwc wccn in taa|- cn |itcratuurwctcnscnap, uanJc|incn van nct
cncnvccrtistc li|c|ccnccnrcs, 1ilburg, 129-41.
, (1998), metatexts and the lrinciple ol charity, in l. 8chmitter & m. van der
wal (eds.), Vctanistcricrapny. 1nccrctica| anJ VctncJc|cica| Aspccts cj tnc
uistcricrapny cj inuistics, 11-2, mnster.
8mith, c.8. (2002), lerspective and loint ol View, in l. lasselgard, 8. }ohansson, l.
lehrens, & c. labricius-lansen (eds.), njcrmaticn 5tructurc in a crcss-inuistic
crspcctivc, Amsterdam, 6!-9.
, (200!), VcJcs cj uisccursc. 1nc cica| 5tructurc cj 1cxts, cambridge.
8myth, l.w., (196), 6rcck 6rammar, cambridge, mA.
8olmsen, l. (19!1), uemetrios lc cqvcie und sein peripatetisches
Quellenmaterial, ucrmcs 66, 241-6.
8olodow, }.l., (1988), 1nc wcr|J cj oviJs Vctamcrpncscs, chapel lillJlondon.
8tahl, }.m., (190), kritiscn-nistcriscnc 5yntax Jcs riccniscncn \cruums Jcr k|assiscncn
7cit, leidelberg.
8tanzel, l.l., (2001
), 1nccric Jcs rzn|cns, ottingen.

1annen, u., (1982), Oral and literate 8trategies in 8poken and written Narratives,
anuac 8, 1-21.
1aplin, O., (19), 1nc 5taccrajt cj Acscny|us, Oxlord.
, (1986), lilth-century 1ragedy and comedy. A 8ynkrisis, ju5 106, 16!-4.
1arrant, k.}., (2004), . oviJi Nascnis. Vctamcrpncscs, Oxlord.
1erwelp, o., (18!), uc Acsi|ai, ui Xcncpncntis ncminc jcrtur, auctcrc (uiss.
monasterii).
1hompson, 8.A. & k.l. longacre, (198), Adverbial clauses, in 8hopen (198), 11-
2!4.
1renkner, 8., (1960), c sty|c kA Jans |c rccit attiuc cra|, Assen.
1sitsiou-chelidoni, c., (1999), lrzhlerische Querverbindungen in Ovids
metamorphosen, in w. 8chubert (ed.), oviJ. wcrk unJ wirkun. lcstauc jur
Vicnac| vcn A|urccnt zum e. 6cuurtsta, 1eil l, lranklurt am main, 269-!0!.
wackernagel, }., (1926), \cr|csuncn uucr 5yntax, l, lasel.
wakker, o.c., (1994), ccnJiticns anJ ccnJiticna|s. An nvcstiaticn cj Ancicnt 6rcck,
Amsterdam.
, (199), modal larticles and uillerent loints ol View in lerodotus and
1hucydides, in lakker (199a), 21-0.
, (2006), luture Auxiliaries or Not, in crespo, ue la Villa & kevuelta (2006), 2!-
.
walker, A.u., (199!), narcia and the 8pectator in oreek listoriography, 1AnA
12!, !!-.
webster, 1.l.l., ([19!6]

1969
2
), An ntrcJucticn tc 5cpncc|cs, london.
lllllOokAllY 241
weil, l., (1844), uc |crJrc Jcs mcts Jans |cs |anucs ancicnncs ccmparccs aux |anucs
mcJcrncs, laris.
, (188), 1nc orJcr cj wcrJs in tnc Ancicnt anuacs ccmparcJ witn tnat cj tnc
VcJcrn anuacs (1ranslated with Notes and Additions by ch.w. 8uper),
loston [New ldition with an lntroduction by A. 8caglione, Amsterdam 198].
wheeler, 8. (2001), Narrativc uynamics in oviJs metamorphoses, 1bingen.
whitman, c.l., ([191] 1966
2
), 5cpncc|cs. A 5tuJy cj ucrcic uumanism, cambridge, mA.
wilamowitz, 1. von, ([191] 19), uic Jramatiscnc 1ccnnik Jcs 5cpnck|cs, lerlin.
willetts, k.l. (196), 1nc aw ccJc cj 6crtyn, lerlin.
willink, c.w., (1986), uripiJcs orcstcs, Oxlord.
wolleren, A. van, (200!), \crtc|Jc cn cspcc|Jc wcrc|J. 1aa|kunJic nctitics uij Jc
cpcnincn van uripiJcs tracJics, Amsterdam (Lnpubl. diss. Vrije Lniversiteit,
Amsterdam).
wulll, 8., (200!), A multilactorial corpus Analysis ol Adjective Order in lnglish,
ntcrnaticna| jcurna| cj ccrpus inuistics 2, 24-82.

lNulX lOcOkLm

Aeschylus
A.
1-21 14
18 22n4
! 22n4
10! 12n19
cnc.
22 12n19
r.
118 14n2
1n.
609 12n19
68 12n19

Apollonius uyscolus
5ynt.
l.1!-29 214n14
l.1!2 214n11
lll.9 214n12
lll.62 214n12
lll.8 214n12

(ls.-) Aristides
kn.
2.1!4 12n!0
2.1! 10n29

Aristotle
kn.
1!8a!-b2 21n19
141a12-21 21n20

cicero
or.
119 226n44
ni|.
2.6! 22

cmo 1!4n22

uemetrius
|cc.
60 219n2!
190 219n2!
192-20! 219n2
199-201 21-2!
221 219n2!

uemosthenes
19.12.4 12n19
2!.189. 12n19
24..1 12n19

uionysius ol lalicarnassus
Amm.
ll 211n!
ccmp. (ed. Lsener & kadermacher)
4.18.4-19.18 211n2
214-4, 222

luripides
A|c.
2n
2!n0
8 22n46
9 22n4
2! 22n4
24 2!n49
!!1 2!n49
689 2!n49
AnJr.
16 22n46
21 22n4
24 22n4
!4- 22n4
! 2!n0
4!-4 22n4
804 12n19, n21
124!-4 12
8a.
1 22
6- 22n4
60 22n4
2!0 12n19, n21
91! 12n19
244 lNulX lOcOkLm
|.
6 22n46
2 2!n0
!1 2!n0, 2n
!4 2n
!6- 2n
4! 2!n49, 24n2, 2n
!!9 12n19
ucc.
8 22n46
42 2!n0
! 2!n49
uc|.
4 22n46
2n
8 22n4
1 2n
21-! 24n2
22-!6 2-26
! 2!n0
46 22n4
6 2!n0
64 22n4
16! 12n19, n21
ucrac|.
11 2!n49
1 2!n0
24 2!n49
!4 22n46
! 2!n49
40 2!n49
42 22n4
49 2!n49
! 2!n49
642 12n19
ul
! 2!n49
8 22n46
9 2!n49
26 2n
41 2n
42 2!n49
44 22n4
48 22n4
1 22n4
uipp.
2!n0, 2n
9 2!n0
12 22n46
20 2!n0
!8 2n
41 2!n0
1 2!n49
A
49-10 n!
cn
22n46
28 2!n0
!9 22n4
66 22n4
69 22n4
6 22n4
6-9 24-
9 2!n49
1
10 2n
!0 22n46
!! 2!n0
!4 22n4
! 24n2
41 22n4
4! 2!n0, 2n
! 2!n0
6-6 22n4
VcJ.
10 22n46
!9 2!n0
46-8 2!n49
1!! 2!n49
or.
1 2n
!2 2n
! 2!n49
!9 2n
46 22n46
2 2n
6 2n
62 2n
n.
-6 22n46
9 2!n0
4! 24n2
68 22n4
9 22n4
98 12n19
kn. n!
5upp|.
1-2 22n46
8 2!n0
8-9 2!n49
1 2!n0
20-2 2!
lNulX lOcOkLm 24
! 2!n0
!0 22n4
928 12n19
1rc.
4 22n46
!2-! 22-!
!6- 21-!

lerodotus
1..! 19n1!, 19-80
1.6 220
1..2 222
1.11. 12, 186
1.24.8 204
1.2.2 188-9, 192-4, 19-8, 204
1.!4.1 16-, 16n9, 186
1.!4.2 1
1.4 186n19
1.4.2 16n9
1.4.! 110n24
1.!.1 1
1.86.2 18!-4
1.9.! 12-!, 186
1.108.2 16n8
1.120.4 10n
1.1! 196-
1.11.1 196-
1.12.1 196
1.18.1 16n8
1.16!.2 19-6
1.180.! 199n19
1.188.2 198-9
1.194.1 19n1!
1.202.1 194-
1.209.! 18n12
1.210.1 16-, 16n9, 18
2.!.1 184
2.9.2 18-9, 18n12
2.11.1 19n1!
2.!.1 18-80, 19n1!
2.!9.! 10n
2.40.1 19n1!
2.42.1 18n12
2.4!.! 11-2
2.60.! 198-9
2.94.2 206-
2.99.1 19n1!
2.1!!.1 16-
2.1!!.2 16n8
2.14.1 18n12
2.1.! 18n12
2.10.2 188-9, 192-4
!.!.1 201-2
!.6.1 19n1!
!.6.2 18n12
!.16.6 16n8
!.!.2 18n12
!.42.1 201-2
!..1 10n
!.6.! 16n9
!.6.4 16n9
!.2.4- 10-1, 1!-4
!.80. 19n1!
!.10! 18n12
!.128.1 18!
4.4!.! 184
4.0.! 20
4.82 19n1!
4.8!.1 180-1
4.9.! 10
4.99.1-2 18-9
4.99.2 19n1!
4.12.2 18n12
4.129.1 180
4.1!.2 18
4.18!.1 19-8
.11.2 18!
.49. 18n12
.4.1 18n12
.6.1 202
.62.1 19n1!
.6. 18n12
.2.! 182-!
.111.! 18n12
6.2.1 16n9
6.!9 180
6.44.2 202-!
6.81.1 181-2, 184
6.98 186n19
6.98.1 16n9
6.109.4 19n1!
.8.1 10-1, 1!-4
.9.1 186
.10e! 10-1
.10y1 208-9
.14 12-!, 186
.49.! 19n1!
.61 209
.64.1 19!-4
.6 196
.6.1 19!-4
.8!.2 200
246 lNulX lOcOkLm
.102.2 19n1!
.112 199n19
.148.2 16n9
.1!.4 200
.198.1 20!
.206.1-20 11
.219.1 186n19
.22!.4 169, 18-6
8.!.1 186
8.41.2 196
8..1 18n12
8.60e 201-2
8.6.6 16n9
8.0.2 168-9, 184-
8.!.2 200-2, 206
8.6.2 186n19
8.86 14
8.106.! 169, 18-6
8.109. 182-!
9.18.1-2 181, 18!
9.22.1-2 209
9. 194-
9.98.4 11
9.109.1 20

lomer
|.
1.1 21n20
6.12 216, 229
6.12-4 221-2
1!.!4!-4 1!
oJ.
1.1 21n20

law code ol oortyn
l.2-12 1-8
l. 161
l.20 164-
l.2! 161
l.!4 161n10
lll.6 161
V.!1 161
V.4! 19
Vll.4 16-6
lX.!0, !8, 0 16!-4
Xl.2-8 16
Xl.!0 19

livy
22.4 2n18
44.4.4 8n!2
longinus
5uu|.
2 211n1

N1 1!4n22

Ovid
Vct.
1. !22-! n24
2.08-26 8, 82-8, 8n!!, 91
2.!-8! 8, 80-1
4.-9 91n!
4.100-6 91n!
4.292-8 6-9, 82
4.29-!04 8-9
4.!46- 8, 8, 8, 89-90
6.!0!-12 8, 86-8
6.!4!-8 6-
6.424-!8 91n!
6.!-62 68-1, 8-6
6.621-!6 91n!
8.!2-4 8, 82, 8-6
8.14-2 8, 8-9
8.611-!4 91n!
8.!8-6 91n!
8.99-809 8, 81-2, 8
1!.408- !n16
14.-1 !n16

lindar
ytn.
10.29-49 !0-4
o|.
!.1-! !9-40
!.12-! !4-41
!.!8-41 40

Quintilian
nst.
1.pr.! 226n44
1.4.18 22n4!
9.4.24-6 224-
9.4.29-!0 226-

8ophocles
Aj.
8 2!n49
294-6 1!n22
69 12n19
81-6 14
822 2!n49
lNulX lOcOkLm 24
828 22n4
8!4 22n4
1228 12n19
Ant.
198 12n19
249-2 1!n22
10! 2!n49
oc
66-62 1!n22
1!29 2!n49
o1
4 21n20
121- 1!n22
n.
10!6 2!n49
1261 12n19
1! 2!n49
1r.
1-48 -19
94-6 8n

1hucydides
1.20-! 216
1.24.1 216, 220-1, 228-9
1.8.1 110n24
1.10.6 110n24
1.1!2. 110n24
2.9.!- 11n!
!.89.! 11n!
6- 11!-6
6.1 11!-4
6. 11!-4
6.4-9 114n29
6.100-2 9!-11
.8!.!- 11-6
.8.-6 11
8.10.4-9 11n!
8.19.!-4 11n!
8.22.2 11n!
8.!4 11-118
8.42.2 110n24
8..!.9-12 11n!

Vergil
A.
1.1 4n12
1.12- 4
1.19-69 2n18, 8
1.446-49 2
1.28-40 0-1
2.42 4n20
2.91 4n12
2.1!4 4n12
2.20!- 4, 4
2.209ll. 9n2
2.4!2 4n12
2.06 4n12
!.!9 4n12
!.8 4n9
4.66 61n28
4.20! 4n9
4.204 4n9
4.40-6 -8
.!9 6n2!
.116-2! 46
.!!-9 60
.88 4n9
.46-8 4-
6.14 4n9
6.2!9ll. 4n
6.!!! 4n20
6.!!8 4n20
6.28 4n12
6.601 4n12
.44l. 4n12
.8-9 49-0
.!2ll. 4n11
.409 4n9
.11-6 6
.! 4n9
.6 4n9
8.600 4n9
9.1ll.
9.82 4n9
9.16-81 48
9.!1 60
9.44 4n
9.2 4n12
9.91 4n9
9.1-9 48-9, 0n1, 1
10.16!ll. 62n!1
10.0-9 61
11.141 4n20
11.66 61n28
12.2!8 9n2
12.2!8-4! !-4, 9n2
12.00 6
12.00-4 62-!
12.! 4n9

248 lNulX lOcOkLm
Xenophon
An.
1.1.2 12n!0
Acs.
1.1 12!
1.2- 12!
1.6 12!n4, n6, 124n9
1.6-2.!1 12!
1.6-!.1 124-, 141
1.9 12n, n9
1.10 12!n4
1.10-12 1!2-
1.14- 1!6-41, 14!
1.!1-!! 146-9
1.!4-! 10-2
1.!8 12!n4
2.4-6 141-4
2.9 124n9
2.14 12n1
2.1-16 144-
2.22 1!0
!.1 12!, 12!n4, n
!.2-9. 12!
10 12!
10.1 12!n
10.! 12!n!
11 12!
u6
1.1.1 12!n2
1.1.18-20 129, 141, 149
!.4.1-6 126
!.4.11-2 126
!.4.11-! 1!6-41, 14!
!.4.1-2 126
!.4.2!-4 146-9
!.4.2 10-2
!.4.29-4.1.1 1!1, 140, 14!
!.4.-6 1!
!.4.6- 1!2-
4.!.!-9 126
4.!.8-10 141-4
4.!.9 140
4.!.1! 144
4.!.1 144
4.!.1-21 126
4.!.20-21 144-
4.4.19 126
4..1-! 126
4.6.1-12 126
.1.!2-4 126
.2.8-10 126
.!.10- 126
.4.!8-41 12!
.4.4-4 126
6..10-21 126
6..2!-!2 126
..2 12!n2
occ.
14. 1!4n22

olNlkAl lNulX

adjective ordering, 188-210
alternation ol tenses (in dramatic
prologues), 16-, 2-6
ancient theory, 212-!, 218-9, 22!, 22,
2!0
announcement, 2!n49, 24-2, 1261!,
18-80
aorist participle, 109-10, 1!4-
aorist tense, 16-, 2-6, !1-2, !, 9!,
911, 10214, 106-9, 112n2, 11-6,
122, 128-!2, 1!4-, 1!9-41, 14!-,
148-9, 11-6, 10
aspect, !2, !, 69, 81n!0, 9-8, 106-
110, 120, 122-16, 11n
audience address (in drama), 19-28

background, 0n16, 64, 4, 101,
1021!, 14
base, 42, !-64, 66-0, 2, 6-, 82, 8
rctrcspcctivc jscc a|sc: Jisccursc
mcJcs: Narrativc: narrativc
Jisccursc mcJc], 6-0, 2, , 82
(stcry-)intcrna| jscc a|sc: Jisccursc
mcJcs: Narrativc: Jircctin mcJc],
68, 0, 2, , 82
ouioei
scmantic va|uc, 186-
ouiocvo, 18!-4

chronology, 29-!4, !, !9, 41, 4!, 101,
12!-4
completeness
cj Jisccursc units, 129-!0, 1!
cj 5cA, !2, !, 106, 10n16, 128-9
continuity
asscciatcJ witn iei, 10214, 10
asscciatcJ witn tc...iei, 141
cj Jisccursc tcpics, n24, 8, 106
cj Jisccursc units, 129-1!2, 141
ccntincus Ns, 188n2
intcrprctaticn cj tcnsc as
ccntinucus, 69-1, 211, -6, 92
co-ordination, 140-1, 191n, 19n1,
199-208, 210

deictic pronouns (in dramatic
prologues), 21-!
describing mode, see discourse
modes: uescription
diaphonic monologues, 26-8
diegetic mode, see discourse modes:
Narrative
iiciv, 160-6
directing mode, see discourse modes:
Narrative
discontinuity
asscciatcJ witn c, 10214, 10, 1!9,
20n!1
cj Jisccursc tcpics, 1!9
cj Jisccursc units, n24, 129-1!2,
1!4n2!
Jisccntincus Ns, 188n2
discourse modes [see also: discourse
type and text type], 42-121,
124n11
Arumcnt, 4!n!, 6, 122n11
ucscripticn/Jcscriuin mcJc, 4!-4,
1-!, , 8, 64, 66-8, 1, 211, 8-
91
uircct uisccursc, 6
njcrmaticn, 4!n!, 6
Narrativc, 66-1, 211, -9, 82,
84, 86-88, 90-1, 9!, 96-102, 122n11
Jicctic mcJc, 101, 1021!, n9,
104, 120n40
Jircctin mcJc jscc a|sc: uasc:
(stcry-)intcrna|], 4!, 4n12, ,
9-64, 0n11, 2n1, 6n22
Jisp|accJ mcJc, 9!-6, 911, 98-
10, 108n1, 109, 112-4, 116,
118n!, n!6, 120n40
immcJiatc mcJc, 9!-4, 96,
911, 98-102, 104n11, 108n1,
n19, n21, 109-110, 112-!, 116-
21
mimctic mcJc, 1, 101, 1021!,
n9, 104, 108n19, 110n2, 120
narrativc Jisccursc mcJc jscc
a|sc: uasc: rctrcspcctivc], 4!-,
20 olNlkAl lNulX
48-1, ,
kcistcrin, 4!-, 4, 2, , 9
kcpcrt/rcpcrtin mcJc, 4!-8, 0-2,
-, 62-4, 66-8, 211, !-4,
n24, 91
discourse particles, see particles
discourse type [see also: discourse
modes and text type], 2, 42-1!
displaced mode, see discourse
modes: Narrative

cOciu
scmantic va|uc, 186-
cOciuv, 18!-4
cvycie, 121
epic regression, !!
c_oei - lut. participle, 18-80, 186-

luripidean prologues, 10-11, 19-28

localization, n24, 60n2, 81n!0,
102, 104, 108n1, 112n2, 114,
116, 118, 119n!, 120, 141
locus, 218, 221-2, 224, 226-, 229n
loreground, 0n16, 64, 101, 1021!, 14
lormula, 111, 18-9, 162, 164
lragmentation, 8-, 89-90, 92
lunctional orammar, 21!, 219-22,
22, 228n48, 2!0-1
luture participle (latin), 61
luture predictions, 1-
luture tense (oreek), 126, 121!, 168-
8
scmantic va|uc juturc inJicativc,
12-!, 1, 186-
scmantic va|uc juturc particip|c,
180-2, 186-
vs c_oei - juturc particip|c, 18-
80
vs ciiu, 1!-
luture tense (latin), 4411, 4n, 6

heaviness, , 19n1, 200-20!,
20n!1, 210
historic present, 1, 2-, 4!, 46,
2n18, !-4, 9, 61, 62n!0, 66, 68,
0, !12, 41!, -90, 92-!, 911,
98, 100, 10112, 1021!, 14, 10n12,
10-10, 114-8, 120, 121n42, 129,
1!2, 149n28, 10-2, 211
as an a|tcrnativc jcr tnc impcrjcct
in oviJs metamorphoses, 8-90
as an a|tcrnativc jcr tnc pcrjcct in
oviJs metamorphoses, 6-8
historical reconstruction, 212, 2!1

immediate mode, see discourse
modes: Narrative
imperlect tense (oreek), 16-, 2, !2,
!89!, 9-8, 1021!, 14, 106-,
112n2, 114, 116, 120, 122, 128-!2,
1!4-, 1!9-41, 14!, 14, 148-9,
12-!, 162n11, 16n9
imperlect tense (latin), 44-, 49-0,
2, 4, 6-, 9, 0, 2, !12, 4,
6-92
inlormativeness, 11, 6, 192n10, 19!-
20!, 20n!1, 208-10
interactional particles, see particles

juxtaposition, 16, 191n, 19n1,
199-208, 214

ieteiiciv, 160-1
iivciv, 18-60

law code ol oortyn, 14-16

ciiu
scmantic va|uc, 169-2, 186-
as a scmi-auxi|iary, 1!-4
vs. juturc tcnsc, 1!-
ciiuv, 182-!
mimetic mode, see discourse modes:
Narrative
monologues in drama, -28

narrative (discourse) mode, see
discourse modes: Narrative
narrative technique, -6, 84n!1, 8,
92, 122-1!
near-minimal pairs, 12612, 1!2-12
non-completeness
cj Jisccursc units, 1!
cj 5cA, 106, 128
Nl, 188-210

ovuvei, 18-60, 16

parataxis, 9!, 10n12, 108, 11-
particles
Jisccursc partic|cs, 9-8, 104-6
olNlkAl lNulX 21
y, 911, 1!4, 144, 12
c, 9-8, 10214, 104-6,
108n1, 112n2, 114, 116,
12!n2, 1!0-1, 1!4, 1!9-40,
148-9
iei, 9-8, 10214, 10-6, 114,
116, 11n!, 121!, 1!0, 140-
1, 148, 19
cv, 11n!2, 11-8, 1!1, 1!4,
1!9-40, 148-9
ov, 126, 121!, 1!1, 1!, 1!9,
144
tc...iei (...iei), 141
intcracticna| partic|cs, 14-, 2-6
cvtoi as a 05u-partic|c, 1!1n19
peak, 6, 9!n2, 94-6, 109-1
perlect tense (oreek), 126, 121!
perlect tense (latin), 44-, 4-9, 1,
4-, 9, 6, 69-0, 2, !12, 41!,
-8, 8-8, 90-1, 1021!
(eno-)nicu cJcni, 129n1, 149
pluperlect tense (oreek), 911,
10214, 108n1, 121!
pluperlect tense (latin), 44, , 0,
2, !12, 4
nocuoei cJc_i no, 14!-4, 149
lrague 8chool ol linguistics, 224n!6,
228-!0
present participle (oreek), 1!4-
present tense [see also: historic
present], !!, 4!-, 49, 2-6, 8-6!,
68, -91, 14-16, 10, 16, 18
lrototype 1heory, 18
purpose expressions, 180-2

rational reconstruction, 212, 222,
2!0-1
reporting mode, see discourse
modes: keport
rhetoric, !!-4, 41, 8, 121, 12-!, 186,
211-, 21, 219-20, 22, 22-!1
rhetorical question, 24, 2, 61, 126-
ring-composition, !2-!, !6, !8-9

scope, 1!0, 19, 20-
signs ol a narratee, 12-, 21-6
style, 28, 6!, 6-8, 2, !n16, , 82,
90-98, 102, 104, 10n12, 118n!,
12n!0, 16, 211, 21-6, 218-20,
222, 229-!0

tense [see also: aorist tense, luture
tense, historic present, imperlect
tense, perlect tense, pluperlect
tense, present tense], 16-, 2-6,
29, !!, 42-9!, 911, 98, 100,
10112, 1021!, 106-10, 112n2,
114-, 120, 126, 12n!0, 1n10,
18, 211
text type [see also: discourse modes
and discourse type], 66-, 90
topic, , 8, 90, 10-, 126-, 1!9,
19, 191n9, 216-8, 220-2, 22!n!,
224n!6, 226, 228, 229n
tcnoei cJcni, 148-9

word order, 188-2!2

zoom, 6-, 82-, 92, 110, 112

ALLAN J R BUIJS M 2007 The Language of Literature

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ALLAN J R BUIJS M 2007 The Language of Literature

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Language of Literature

ln the second place, the nurse in

1aplin (19: 8).

lut at the same

lroon (199: 109-10).

lach ol these modes is

8mith does not claim exhaustivity on this point.

1hese observations seem to be in line with 8olodows conclusion (1988: 2, 1!2)

ln latin a similar use ol the historic present is mentioned by 8chlicher (19!1:

8uzanne Adema is currently preparing a lhu dissertation aiming at a

: 29). 1hus, 8tanzel

1he Acsi|aus closes oll with

1he text is agent oriented, time is not projected,

v) au sujet dun homme

dycv) pas avant jugement. 8il

[iey]ci), que (le juge) l e

ll sagit, a linlinitil prc

la rpartition impratil inlinitil prc impcrativc a t tudie par oarcia

l 12, 1!-14, 2!-24, lll 1, Vl 4, Xl 29-!0.

ctei), saul quand son verbe est un de ceux qui

enoi, iieit viiv t cv cicuOc

enoi), alors c (injonction iieit viiv). On

i, etov etOei ie te i(ete dti ie ncnetei.

cetci, tov iietev ovuvte iivcv.

otov, iicv ei cyettei, tv eiiv ovuvte iivcv

otov J ovuvte), les deux modes de procdure londamentaux

iovev iciovev onuicOei c

1he same objections can be lound in kisselada (1984: 206).

, who argue that adjective order is determined by

when adopting this method, we

korty (1984: 49-6) compares historical and rational reconstruction.

Albert kijksbaron, who is honoured with this volume on 1nc inuistics cj

weil (198) [1844]: !!).

), 1nccric Jcs rzn|cns, ottingen.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen