Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T08:44:57.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The tragic aorist*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Michael Lloyd
Michael Lloyd
Affiliation:
University College Dublin,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The tragic or ‘instantaneous’ aorist usually has a paragraph to itself in the grammar books, as a distinct but not especially important use of the aorist. It is most common in Athenian drama of the second half of the fifth century, although there are possible examples in Homer and some learned revivals later. The present article offers an entirely new account of these aorists, and entails a new interpretation of the tone of some 75 lines of tragedy and comedy.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1999 , pp. 24 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Hayden Pelliccia for commenting on an earlier version of this article. Complete tragedies are cited from the latest Oxford Classical Text. Fragments of Euripides are cited from A. Nauck (ed.), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1889). Other tragic fragments are cited from B. Snell et al. (edd.), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen, 1971–). Aristophanes is cited from the editions of A. H. Sommerstein (Warminster, 1980–). Standard commentaries are cited in the form ‘Fraenkel on A. Ag. 123’, or by author's name alone if it is clear which passage is in question.

References

1 R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols (Hanover and Leipzig, 1898–1904), vol. I, pp. 163–5. The standard commentaries on Greek drama add little or nothing to Kühner-Gerth's discussion.

2 Goodwin, W. W., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (corrected impression; London, 1912),§60Google Scholar alleged that the instantaneous aorist is colloquial. Denniston (on E. El. 215), however, observed that it is almost confined to tragedy, and entirely absent from the dialogue prose of Plato and Xenophon.

3 Moorhouse, A. C., The Syntax of Sophocles (Mnemosyne Suppl. 75; Leiden, 1982), p. 195.Google Scholar

4 D. B. Monro, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect (Oxford, 1891), §78. Schwyzer, Cf. E., Griechische Grammatik (Munich, 1939–53), vol. II, pp. 281f., 285f.Google Scholar; Humbert, J., Syntaxe Grecque (Paris, 1945), §187;Google Scholar McKay, K. L., BICS 12 (1965), 5f.Google Scholar

5 Collinge, N. E., ‘Thoughts on the pragmatics of Ancient Greek’, PCPS n.s. 34 (1988), 1–13,Google Scholar at 5, relates the instantaneous aorist to a Greek avoidance of ‘non-verifiable speech acts’, and a consequent suspicion of performatives like ‘Thank you’. He thus argues that evaluatory reactions and formal statements (i.e. all three of Kühner-Gerth's categories) are expressed as reports of historical events (e.g. ‘I approved’). In fact, the present is normally used in these cases, even in tragedy (e.g. ༐παɩνŵ for ‘thank you’).

6 The basic discussion of performatives is Austin, J. L., How To Do Things with Words (Oxford, 1962).Google Scholar Austin's views, which themselves evolved, were developed and systematized in Searle, J. R., Speech Acts (Cambridge, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The term ‘performative’ is problematic, but is adequate for present purposes to characterize a particular type of verb. The literature on ‘speech acts’ is now vast; a lucid survey is Levinson, S. C., Pragmatics (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 226–83.Google ScholarPubMed

7 Cf. E. Ion 1607, where the tragic aorist ༐δεξάµεσθα is closely followed by the present πεθοµαɩ.

8 Cf. the review of Barrett by Fitton, J. W., Pegasus 8 (1967), 17–43Google Scholar , at 18: ‘Why should a person under the stress of emotion become unusually meticulous about timing the access of his emotion? … The verb does not refer to a thought, it performs a rejection—“pah!” … The aorist is non-temporal.' Fitton rightly stresses the performative nature of the verb, although his own explanation of the aorist is different from that being proposed here. ‘Pah!’ is also insufficiently dignified as a rendering of ảπέπτνσα, which can govern an object in a coherent sentence.

9 Cf. Gow on Theocr. 6.39.

10 ảπέπτνσα (A. P.V. 1070) is descriptive rather than performative, and is thus not ‘instantaneous’ (pace Griffiths ad loc.). The aorist is preterite, on a par with ᾤµαθον (1068), explaining the Chorus' present behaviour in terms of qualities evinced by them in the past. άπέπτνσαν (E. H.F. 560) is also preterite (pace Bond ad loc.), on a par with ᾤσχεν (556) and ༐σπατνζοµεν (558).

11 Cf. Moorhouse (n. 3), p. 197. See also the aorists discussed in n. 72.

12 Cf. 8–10; Denniston on E. El. 248.

13 Cropp, M. J. (ed.), Euripides: Electra (Warminster, 1988), p. xxxiv.Google Scholar

14 Cf. 43 below for the rather different use of ἥσθην at S. Phil. 1314.

15 For the exaggerated emphasis of θανµασíως, see Stevens, P. T., Colloquial Expressions in Euripides (Hermes Einzelschriften 38; Wiesbaden, 1976), p. 14.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Eupolis fr. 246 K-A (Poleis, c. 422 b.c.); Hornblower on Thuc. 4.129.2.

17 Sommerstein's text (variants do not affect the point at issue here).

18 Moorhouse (n. 3), pp. 195f. Dale describes ĸατώµοσα (E. Hel. 835) as ‘impulsive aor’.

19 It is, of course, possible to swear a formal oath without a performative verb of swearing (e.g. E. I.T. 735–52; Ion 1528–31).

20 Banal formulae like οủ µàΔíα are not dignified enough for tragedy (E. An. 934 is the rule-proving exception). They can, however, be brought up to the level of tragedy by expansion and elaboration, e.g. Clytaemestra's µà τήν ἄνασσαν Άργεάαν θεάν (E. I.A. 739). Cf. Dover, K. J., Greek and the Greeks (Oxford, 1987), p. 48.Google Scholar

21 Kannicht (on 834) implausibly suggests that γαµοíµαι; (833) is not the alternative to rescue, but the premise of Helen's decision to die with Menelaus. It would invite misunderstanding for her to use unadorned futures to convey this idea.

22 There are appeals to mute witnesses at Hipp. 976–80, 1074f., but both use indirect formulations which avoid the absurdity of the performative present in such a context (cf. E. I.A. 365).

23 West (on 1517) comments: ‘the aorist answers Orestes’ omoson, marking the oath as something conclusive'. This oath is not, however, especially conclusive. Nor is there any reason to suppose that an aorist indicative might be expected after an aorist imperative in such contexts: (present) µνυµι answers (present) µνυ at S. Trach. 1185/1188 and E. Med. 746/752, but (aorist) κατóµοσον at Ar. Av. 444/445.

24 S. fr. 957 has an oath by the Eurotas. For oaths by rivers generally, see Pfeiffer on Callimachus fr. 7.33f.; West on Hes. Th. 400.

25 Brown, Cf. P. and Levinson, S. C., Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 118f., 204Google Scholar; Chalker, S. and Weiner, E., The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘social distancing’ Quirk, R. et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London and New York, 1985), 4.16; 4.37Google Scholar: ‘such forms enable us to avoid the impoliteness which might well result from expressing one's attitude too directly’.

26 Brown and Levinson (n. 25) derive their concept of ‘face’ in particular from Goffman, E., Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior (New York, 1967).Google Scholar

27 Brown and Levinson (n. 25), pp. 65–8 give a useful classification of face-threatening acts (‘FTAs’).

28 Brown and Levinson (n. 25), pp. If., 33, 51, n. 7 adopt the concept of the ‘virtual offence’ from Goffman, E., Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order (New York, 1971), pp. 108f.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Kühner-Gerth (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 233f.; Goodwin (n. 2), §237; Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1049.

30 Cf. Kühner-Gerth (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 172f.;Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA, 1920), §1913.Google Scholar

31 Cf. Kühner-Gerth (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 205f.; Goodwin (n. 2), §425; Smyth (n. 30), §1782.

32 Brown, Cf. R. and Gilman, A., ‘Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies’, Language in Society 18 (1989), 159–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sifianou, M., Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-cultural Perspective (Oxford, 1992)Google Scholar; A. Lardinois, CP 92 (1997), 230, n. 79.

33 Fraenkel (on A. Ag. 838) comments on another polite usage: ‘the restrained form of expression … reflects the urbanity of Attic society’. Lammermann, Cf. K., ‘Von der attischen Urbanität and ihrer Auswirkung in der Sprache’ (diss. Göttingen, 1935)Google Scholar; A. M. Dale, E. Alc. ed., pp. xxiii f. On the ‘stylized-elevated’ language of tragedy, see M. S. Silk, ‘Tragic language: the Greek tragedians and Shakespeare’, in M.S., Silk (ed.), Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond (Oxford, 1996), pp. 458–96.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Brown and Levinson (n. 25), p. 203.

35 Cf. greetings like τòν ἓωνα χαíρειν (PI. Ion 530a1; cf. Men. Dys. 401; Theocr. 14.1) in which the main verb, implicitly a verb of ordering, is omitted altogether.

36 Cf. Brown and Levinson (n. 25), p. 191. Mήδει', ảνεîπον (272) is Harrison's convincing emendation of codd. µήδειαν εἶπον.

37 Two possible examples of tragic aorist with verbs of command are evidently corrupt. L has ὑπεîπον at E. Su. 1171, but Reiske's ὑπειπεîν (read by Collard and Diggle) is plausible on other grounds εἶπον at Ar. Eccl. 255 is difficult (contrast the futures in 250, 256), and Brunck's ἂνεἴποι’ is tempting. A third possible example, εἶπον at E. fr. 233 (Archelaus) lacks context to clarify whether it is preterite or ‘polite’ tragic aorist.

38 Diggle obelizes on metrical grounds, while Mastronarde prints a somewhat different colometry. Bothe deleted ༐κάλεσ'.

39 Silk, M., ‘Aristophanes as a lyric poet’, in J., Henderson (ed.), Aristophanes: Essays in Interpretation, YCS 26 (1980), 99–151Google Scholar, at 134, n. 109, citing Rau, P., Paratragodia: Untersuchungeiner komischen Form des Aristophanes (Zetemata 45; Munich, 1967), pp. 144–8.Google Scholar

40 Cf. Brown and Levinson (n. 25), pp. 67f., 219.

41 Cf. Latin ‘accipio’; Fraenkel on A. Ag. 1653.

42 ༐δεξάµην occurs at S. fr. 208.3 (Eurypylus) in a context of omens (øήµη occurs in the previous line, κόραξ ༐πάδ[[ει in the next), but too little survives for conclusions about style to be possible.

43 Cropp ad loc. For δέχοµαι in accepting an oracular pronouncement, cf. Hdt. 1.63.1.

44 The present δεχóµεθα at Ar. Av. 646 is unlikely to be ‘the polite response’ (Dunbar ad loc.) to Tereus' χαίρετον. Peisetaerus and Euelpides are consistently offensive to him, and their acceptance, rather than reciprocation, of his greeting may express an undisguised sense of superiority (cf. Eupolis, Demoi fr. 131.2 K-A).

45 ༐δεξάµην Musgrave; δεξόµεσθα L.

46 Cf. Brown and Levinson (n. 25), pp. 74–84.

47 ༐δεξάµην (A. Pers. 684f.) must be preterite: Darius (as Broadhead observes) accepted the libations (which are yάποτοι, 621) before he appeared at the tomb. The verb thus cannot be performative (‘I hereby …’).

48 Cf. Brown and Levinson (n. 25), pp. 39, 68.

49 E.g. by Moorhouse (n. 3), p. 195.

50 In Cephisodorus fr. 3 K-A, ἄγαµαι is evidently a pompous way of saying ‘please’ (cf. Latin ‘amabo’).

51 Cf. Lammermann (n. 33), pp. 34f.

52 Quincey, J. H., ‘Greek expressions of thanks’, JHS 86 (1966), 133–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 157. Quincey cites a variety of indirect phrases based on this, e.g. πήνει (‘he thanked’) at [Dem.]49.25.Cf.Xen.Smp. 1.7; S. Aj. 1381f., 1401; El. 1044; E. Alc. 1036, 1109; Su. 388.

53 Denniston (on E. El. 215) paraphrases: ‘the instant you spoke, I approved your words’.

54 See Brown and Levinson (n. 25), pp. 67, 189, 190, 210, 247.

55 The distinction does not apply to Aeschylus, where the present αdzνŵ is quite formal (Su. 710; Eum. 1021), and the instantaneous aorist of αdzνŵ and compounds does not occur.

56 This line is elucidated by Quincey (n. 52), p. 153.

57 Quincey (n. 52), p. 155.

58 LSJ give ‘address in prayer’ for προσεύχοµαι + accusative, comparing Ar. Pl. 958; but προσεύχοµαι there means ‘pray to’, and προσεννέπω usual for ‘address in prayer’ (cf. Fraenkel on A. Ag. 162). ༐πηυξάµην (E. Su. 8) is clearly preterite: the preceding seven lines give the actual content of Aethra's prayer, and she now explains why she made it.

59 It is unlikely that both 1093 and 1095 are genuine: Wilamowitz deleted 1093–4, while Diggle accepts Dale's deletion of 1094–5.

60 Cf. Kannicht on E. Hel. 639–40. λβίζω in the first-person singular for felicitation is rare and late.

61 Cf. Monro (n. 4), §78; Chantraine, P., Grammaire homérique (Paris, 1958–63), vol. II, p. 184.Google Scholar

62 Cf. R. Janko (on 14.95): ‘ὠνοσάµην refers to Odysseus’ reaction at the instant he heard the proposal'. Janko addresses the question of the meaning of νûν δέ at 14.95, which worried some Alexandrian scholars. He paraphrases ‘but as it is <you said this, and> I blame your wits’.

63 οủκ ༐παιν expresses a single concept (‘I disapprove’; cf. Ar. Lys. 71), so the aorist makes the whole expression more polite. Cf. Kühner-Gerth (n. 1), vol. II, p. 180, n. 3 (discussing οὔ φηµι, etc.).

64 This whole speech is textually problematic, and 764 is part of a passage regarded as spurious by Diggle.

65 Cf. Page on E. Med. 958; Sommerstein on A. Eum. 1019–20.

66 Cf. C. W. Willink, CQ 39 (1989), 52f.

67 Cf. Fraenkel on A. Ag. 144f. (pp. 87f.).

68 In this sense, Aeschylus also has αἱνŵ (Su. 179; Cho. 555, 715) and ༐παινŵ (Sept. 596; Su. 996; Cho. 581).

69 ταὔτ’ Heath; ταûτ’ codd. (1433). Jebb prefers ταûτ', and argues that the verb is preterite.

70 παρήνεσα (A. Pers. 224) is taken as instantaneous by Broadhead, but is more likely to be preterite, referring back to the advice which the chorus has been giving. Cf. ༐πανερόµαν (Meineke's conjecture at 973); ταύτην… ༐ξήτειν… παραίνεσιν (A. Eum. 707); and the rhetorical transitions common in Euripides (e.g. Med. 545f.; Su. 1213; El. 1276; Pho. 494f.).

71 Kühner-Gerth (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 163f.; cf. Garvie ad loc.

72 Cf. Moorhouse (n. 3), p. 194 for other examples of such ‘terminative’ aorists. This type of aorist is common with verbs of loving like øιλήω and στήρyω, in the sense ‘came to love’, ‘formed an affection’ (H. II. 3.414f.; 5.423; Od. 8.480f.; Theognis 67; S. O.T. 1023; fr. 770; Ar. Ran. 229; cf. ήχθηρε at H. II. 20.306). Cf. Monro (n. 4), §78; Chantraine (n. 61), vol. II, p. 184.

73 Moorhouse (n. 3), p. 196 distinguishes these aorists from other ‘instantaneous’ uses: ‘In these cases it is probable that the aorist has (immediate) past reference’. Contrast Mastronarde on E. Pho. 983.

74 Cf. Kühner-Gerth (n. 1), vol. I, pp. 167–9; Smyth (n. 30), §1940.

75 Jebb compares ảπώµοσ' (S. Phil. 1289; cf. 25). Easterling additionally cites ༐πήβαν (Pind. Nem. 1. 18), which is surely preterite, referring back to the earlier part of the ode (Race's Loeb translation has ‘I have embarked’).