The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators 9781463221720

Miller provides a systematic analysis of the ways in which Attic orators used the ancient Greek imperative.

200 87 3MB

English Pages 38 [42] Year 2009

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Recommend Papers

The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators
 9781463221720

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

330 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators

C. W. E. Miller

w

1 gorgia? press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-588-9

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The ^American Journal of Philology 13 (1892)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

AMERICAN

JOURNAL V O L . X I I I , 4.

OF

PHILOLOGY W H O L E NO. 52.

I . — T H E L I M I T A T I O N O F T H E I M P E R A T I V E IN T H E ATTIC ORATORS.1 Raff, the composer of the celebrated Lenore Symphony, happened one day to be taking a walk with a friend of his. In the course of their conversation, the friend made some remarks about the difficulties of musical harmony and counterpoint. 1 " C o n t e m p t s o l v e s no p r o b l e m s " is a w i s e s a y i n g that I have tried to b e a r in mind under sore t e m p t a t i o n t h r o u g h o u t the course of my g r a m m a t ical s t u d i e s , and I h a v e n e v e r j o i n e d heartily in the H o m e r i c l a u g h t e r or u n - H o m e r i c g u f f a w w h i c h is a l w a y s e v o k e d w h e n the name of P r o t a g o r a s i s cited in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the doctrine of the moods and the use of the ' m p e r a t i v e in H o m e r . I n d e e d , I h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s p e c t for the first p r o f e s s o r that a t t a c k e d the s u b j e c t of G r e e k s y n t a x , and s h o u l d continue to h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s p e c t for him, e v e n if I w e r e l e f t to form my notion of P r o t a g o r a s f r o m the m i m e of the g r e a t prose A r c h i l o c h u s , Plato. Aristotle, to w h o m we are i n d e b t e d for the P r o t a g o r e a n c r i t i c i s m of H o m e r , is an u n s y m p a t h e t i c soul, and his r e p o r t is an u n s y m p a t h e t i c one : ri yap av TIC VKoXafiot fyaprijadai a Uporayopar eirrri.tia bri ei^ecrdai oiouevor ETTCTCITTEL U7TC)V a fj v l. v aeide dea\ TO yap Ks/xvaai, tyrjei, izoielv ri r] uij eirira^ig kartv ( P o e t . , c. 19). But e v e n A r i s t o t l e d o e s not deny that the criticism may have c o g e n c y in a n o t h e r s p h e r e , and adds : Sib irapeiaSo at; aXk-qf kat oil r^f noiijTiKije i n c l i n e d to l a y m o r e s t r e s s than he d o e s on the p s y c h o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t s i n v o l v e d , but that r e s e r v e d o e s not a f f e c t the i m p o r t a n c e of his r e s e a r c h nor the s u g g e s t i v e n e s s of his p r e s e n t a t i o n . — B . L . G . ' S e e S p e n g e l , R h e t . G r . I I , p. 300,or W a l z , I I I , p . 237 : axy/ia™ Se rpaxea

fiakiara fitv ra irpoGTCWTiKa • (nov -¿¡q 'AptaroyeirovoG Kpioeuc avauvriadtvrtr h/KaIvipacde. . . .

KU\a de rpax^a ra ¡ipaxvTEpa ( h e n c e a l s o i m p e r a t i v e f o r m s ) Kat

a |u(7 a n d then, s u d d e n l y b r e a k i n g off, stirs up his hearers b y the v i g o r o u s p a r e n t h e s i s : xal onws ¡xt] vonjo-eö' etc. H o w m u c h m o r e effective this than an entreating 1701^6' P T h e use of the so-called imperative question is best studied in connection with the other k i n d s of rhetorical questions. Its tone 1

C f . R e h d a n t z ad l o c u m : " man e r w a r t e t nun die A n z a h l zu hören ; a b e r

b e k a n n t mit d e r L e i c h t f e r t i g k e i t und S p o t t s u c h t s e i n e r M i t b ü r g e r , w e l c h e eine so f e i e r l i c h a n g e k ü n d i g t e und d o c h s o b e s c h e i d e n l a u t e n d e F o r d e r u n g l ä c h e l n d w ü r d e n b e w i l l i g t h a b e n , s c h l ä g t er i h n e n z u v o r d u r c h die Parenthese

den S p o t t

aus d e r S e e l e

G e m l i t h e r zu der r i c h t i g e n S t i m m u n g . "

und r e i n i g t s o zu s a g e n

bittere

erst

die

404

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

varies all the way from mild astonishment to utter impatience and intense disgust. Says Rehdantz in a note to Dem. 4, 10: " D e r Charakter dieser Frage ist ein wesentlich anderer als in der zu §2 behandelten. Hier strömt sie aus der unwillig erstaunten Seele des Redenden, und ihr Ziel ist Ueberführung 1 (ß\cyXos Tiber. 8, 540, ncvais eXey/mxi} Hermog. 3, 314) und Beschämung, welche zum Entschluss oder Handeln führen sollen und oft geradezu wie ein Befehl wirken; nur dass sie immer doch den Hörer als ein sich selber frei bestimmendes Wesen anerkennen." See also Rehdantz-Blass, Index to Dem., under " F r a g e . " Hermogenes, Walz, III, p. 237, calls this kind of question AeyxriKos- and makes it only second in degree of harshness, the imperative holding the first place. T h e shortness of the colon, or rather comma, as Hermogenes would have it, also figures prominently in the harsh effect produced (cf. Hermogenes, p. 237 bottom and p. 238 top). T h e following are about all the instances that we have noted in which such a question might, with more or less change in the sentence, be replaced by an imperative of the second person. No claim to exhaustiveness, however, is set up, and no attempt has been made to register the various degrees of harshness: L y s . 14, 17; Isae. 3, 7 7 ; Dem. 19, 283 {bis)-, 20, 83 (bis); 21, 116 (sexies); 222 (bis) ; 23,109; 24, 170 (bis); 203; 205; 2 5 , 2 7 ; 53 iß™)', 63; 36, 52 (.bis); [44], 54; 45, 70; 54, 20; [59], 108; 1 1 7 ; Lycurg. 27 (bis); 54; 78; 1 1 5 ; 1 1 6 ; 1 2 1 ; Aeschin. 1 , 1 3 0 ; 185; 2, 161; 3, 152 (bis); 235 (ter); 253 (bis); Din. 1, 15; 18; 37; 4 1 ; 42; 84; 87; 97; 106 (ter); 107; 2, 11 (ter); 14 (bis); 15 J 3. 7 (Ms)It has just been shown that the number of the imperatives in the orators was considerably reduced by the use of mollifying substitutes. But there is another way in which the number might have been diminished, and that is by intentional or unintentional omission, without replacement by a substitute. But this is a matter that is not directly susceptible of proof. T h e mere absence of a construction does not prove that the nature of the construction is responsible for the conscious or even unconscious avoidance of it on the part of the author. And while, from the general behavior of the imperative as described in this article, it would seem that the nature of the imperative is such as to have caused its absolute omission on many occasions, yet it is hardly fair to utilize any such conclusion before all the evidence has been presented. 1

1 s h o u l d p r e f e r to t a k e i'ltyx'K

in the s e n s e of reproof

and not

conviction.

IMPERATIVE

IN

THE

ATTIC

ORATORS.

405

In d e a l i n g with the actually o c c u r r i n g imperatives it is necessary, first of all, to distinguish b e t w e e n the persons to w h o m the imperative is addressed. It is perfectly evident that the imperatives a d d r e s s e d to one's a d v e r s a r y or to t h e clerk of t h e court, etc., d o not enter p r o m i n e n t l y into the discussion. T h e clerk is the servant of the court, a n d there can be no harshness in a d d r e s s i n g him in the imperative. E v e n Isocrates uses f o r m s l i k e avayvaBi, KaXei, etc. T h e c o m m o n forms used in s p e a k i n g to the clerk are avayiyvaxrue (48 times), avayvadi ( 1 3 4 times), e'n-iXajSe ( i l ) , fVlV^ff ( 1 5 ) , kdXet ( 1 1 4 ) , Xa|3