Ajax 201-595

Greek Learning Greek
1

I’m starting a new thread for the first episode of the Ajax. I have at least two grammar questions that I couldn’t resolve to my satisfaction even with the commentaries I have at hand.

535-536:
Τέκμησσα: ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἐγὼ 'φύλαξα τοῦτό γ᾽ ἀρκέσαι.
Αἴας: ἐπῄνεσ᾽ ἔργον καὶ πρόνοιαν ἣν ἔθου.

What’s the exact function of the aorist ἐπῄνεσ᾽ here? Finglass calls it “instantaneous aorist”.

540
Αἴας: τί δῆτα μέλλει μὴ οὐ παρουσίαν ἔχειν;

I have difficulties understanding the grammatical structure, especially the negatives μὴ οὐ, although I understand the sense.

Thanks for any help!

2

536:

Smyth 1937:

  1. Dramatic Aorist.—The first person singular of the aorist is used in the dialogue parts of tragedy and comedy to denote a state of mind or an act expressing a state of mind (especially approval or disapproval) occurring to the speaker in the moment just passed. This use is derived from familiar discourse, but is not found in good prose. In translation the present is employed. Thus, ἥσθην, ἐγέλασα I am delighted, I can’t help laughing Ar. Eq. 696, ““ἐδεξάμην τὸ ῥηθέν” I welcome the omen” S. El. 668 (prose δέχομαι τὸν οἰωνόν). > So ἐπῄνεσα I approve, > ξυνῆκα I understand. Sometimes this use appears outside of dialogue (““ἀπέπτυσα” I spurn” A. Pr. 1070, Ag. 1193).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+1937&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

540:

LSJ μέλλω:

III. to be always going to do without ever doing: hence, > delay, put off, > freq. in Trag. (also in Med. μέλλομαι, v. infr. IV fin.): in this signf. usu. folld. by pres. inf., S.OT678 (lyr.), OC1627, etc.; τοὺς ξυμμάχους . . οὐ μελλήσομεν τιμωρεῖν: οἱ δ᾽ οὐκέτι μέλλουσι κακῶς πάσχειν we shall not delay to succour our allies, for their sufferings are not being delayed, Th.1.86: > freq. with μὴ οὐ, > A.Pr.627, > S.Aj.540> : with μή, τί μέλλομεν . . μὴ πράσσειν κακά; E.Med.1242: rarely folld. by aor. inf., Id.Ph.299 (lyr.), Rh.673: inf. is freq. omitted, τί μέλλεις; why delayest thou? A.Pr.36, cf. Pers.407, Ag.908, 1353, S.Fr.917, Th.8.78, etc.; “μακρὰ μ.” S.OC219 (lyr.); “Ἄρης στυγεῖ μέλλοντας” E. Heracl.723; “ἴωμεν καὶ μὴ μέλλωμεν ἔτι” Pl.Lg.712b; μέλλον τι . . ἔπος a hesitating word, which one hesitates to speak, E.Ion 1002; μέλλων σφυγμός a hesitating pulse, Gal.8.653.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dme%2Fllw1

The line from Aesch. Prometheus cited alongside Ajax 540 in LSJ is the same form of question:

τί δῆτα μέλλεις μὴ οὐ γεγωνίσκειν τὸ πᾶν;

The “redundant” negative μη phenomenon with “negative” verbs is discussed at Smyth 2739-40 (it wasn’t redundant to the Greeks, of course):

  1. Verbs and expressions of negative meaning, such as deny, refuse, hinder, forbid, avoid, often take the infinitive with a redundant μή to confirm the negative idea of the leading verb.
    With this compare: “First he denied you had in him no right” (Shakesp., Com. of Er. 4. 2. 7); and “La pluie . . . empêche qu’on ne se promène” (Racine); “Verbot ihnen Jesus, dass sie Niemand sagen sollten” (St. Mark 9. 9).

καταρνῇ μὴ δεδρα_κέναι τάδε; dost thou deny that thou hast done this? S. Ant. 442, ““ἀποκωλῦσαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας μὴ ἐλθεῖν” to hinder the Greeks from coming” X. A. 6.4.24, ““κήρῦκα προέπεμψεν αὐτοῖς . . . ἀπεροῦντα μὴ πλεῖν” they sent a herald to forbid them to sail” T. 1.29, ““εὐλαβήσεσθε μὴ πολλῶν ἐναντίον λέγειν” you will beware of speaking in public” P. Eu. 304a, ““ἀπέσχοντο μὴ ἐπὶ τὴν ἑκατέρων γῆν στρατεῦσαι” they abstained from marching upon each other’s territory” T. 5.25.

  1. The redundant μή is used after ἀμφιλέγω and ἀμφισβητῶ dispute, ἀνατίθεμαι retract an opinion, ἀντιλέγω speak against, ἀπαγορεύω and ἀπειπεῖν forbid, ἀπιστῶ doubt, ἀπογιγνώσκω abandon an intention, ἀποκρύπτομαι conceal, ἀπολύ_ω acquit, ἀποστερῶ deprive, ἀποστρέφω divert, ἀποχειροτονῶ and ἀποψηφίζομαι vote against, ἀρνοῦμαι (and compounds, and ἄπαρνός εἰμι, ἔξαρνός εἰμι) deny, διαμάχομαι refuse, εἴργω and ἐμποδών εἰμι prevent, ἐναντιοῦμαι oppose, εὐλαβοῦμαι beware of, ἔχω and ἀπέχω prevent, ἀντέχω, ἀπέχομαι, ἐπέχω, κατέχω abstain from, κωλύ_ω (and compounds) hinder, μεταβουλεύομαι alter one’s plans, μεταγιγνώκω change one’s mind, ὄκνον παρέχω make hesitate, φεύγω (and compounds) escape, avoid, disclaim, φυλάττομαι guard against, etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Asmythp%3D2740

μελλειν in the sense of “delay” isn’t on Smyth’s list, but you can see how it’s semantically similar to some of those verbs that are on the list.

Then Smyth notes in 2742:

  1. When a verb of denying, refusing, hindering, forbidding, etc., is itself negatived, either directly or by appearing in a question expecting a negative answer, the infinitive has μὴ οὐ. > Here both the introductory clause and the dependent clause have virtually an affirmative sense.
    οὐδεὶς πώποτ᾽ ἀντεῖπεν μὴ οὐ καλῶς ἔχειν αὐτούς (τοὺς νόμους) no one ever denied that they (the laws) were excellent D. 24.24, τίνα οἴει ἀπαρνήσεσθαι μὴ οὐχὶ καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπίστασθαι τὰ δίκαια; who, think you, will deny that he too understands what is just? P. G. 461c ( = οὐδεὶς ἀπαρνήσεται). But μὴ οὐ is not used after οὔ φημι, οὐκ ἐῶ, οὐκ ἐθέλω (2692 a).

a. μὴ οὐ with the infinitive here, and elsewhere, is used only when the introductory word or words has an actual or a virtual negative. Since, in ἀρνοῦμαι μὴ ταῦτα δοᾶσαι I deny that I did this, μή confirms the negative idea in ἀρνοῦμαι, so in οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι μὴ οὐ ταῦτα δρᾶσαι I do not deny that I did this, οὐ after the strengthening μή confirms the οὐ prefixed to the leading verb. Cp. “Je ne nie pas que je ne sois infiniment flatté” (Voltaire). In the first sentence μή repeats the ‘negative result’ of ἀρνοῦμαι (single sympathetic negative, untranslatable); in the second sentence οὐ is repeated with the infinitive to sum up the effect of οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι (double sympathetic negative; both untranslatable). After verbs negative in meaning (deny, etc.) μή and μὴ οὐ cannot be translated in modern English (see 2739). After verbs not negative in character but preceded by a negative, and after virtually negative expressions, μή or μὴ οὐ has a negative force (2745, 2746).

b. μὴ οὐ with the infinitive regularly indicates a certain pressure of interest on the part of the person involved.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Smyth+grammar+2742&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007

Although the question in 540 isn’t a yes/no question expecting a negative answer, I think that τί δῆτα μέλλεi is felt like a negative command, “let him [i.e., Eurysaces] not delay.” That’s how I’d explain μη ου here. This is even more so in the Prometheus line, where μέλλεις is second-person.

Addendum: I checked Mark Griffith’s edition of Prometheus on line 627. He explains μὴ οὐ γεγωνίσκειν as “the regular construction after a virtual negative prohibition (τί μέλλεις = ‘nothing is stopping you’)”. So I think my explanation Ajax line 540 is in agreement.

I have to admit that this wasn’t something I knew offhand without wading my way through grammar books. But I think I learned something from this exercise. Sorry for quoting Smyth at such length, but I thought it would be helpful to read what he has to say in its entirety, and also I felt it was necessary to confirm what I think the answer is.

3

Thanks so much! I couldn’t get beyond what LSJ had to say about μέλλω with l. 540. It’s a lot clearer now.

With l. 536, now that I knew what I was looking for, I found more about this “dramatic aorist” in Albert Rijksbaron’s Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek.

R. calls this “tragic aorist” the “aorist indicative of performative verbs”. I’m quoting just some bits that I found especially helpful on pp. 29-30, as it’s too long to quote in full.

Generally speaking, I’ve found R.'s book quite helpful on several occasions. It’s a shortish book that makes many points much clearly than e.g. Smyth, and it’s informed about modern linguistics.

4

Cooper[1] makes a similar judgement. The aroist marks a state of consciousness that was reached while the previous speaker was talking so as the speaker reports on this state of consciousness it is already in the past. (my paraphrase). This might sound to S.E. Porter disciples like a desperate attempt to recuse the aorist past tense. I don’t think that is what Cooper is doing. He gives about 20 examples.

Aeschylus Choephoroe Line 887
{Οι.} τὸν ζῶντα καίνειν τοὺς τεθνηκότας λέγω.
{Κλ.} οἲ ‘γώ, > ξυνῆκα > τοὔπος ἐξ αἰνιγμάτων.
δόλοις ὀλούμεθ’, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκτείναμεν.

Sophocles Ajax Line 99
{ΑΙ.} Ὥστ’ οὔποτ’ Αἴαντ’, οἶδ’, ἀτιμάσουσ’ ἔτι.
{ΑΘ.} Τεθνᾶσιν ἅνδρες, ὡς τὸ σὸν > ξυνῆκ> ’ ἐγώ.

Sophocles , Electra Line 1479
{ΟΡ.} Οὐ γὰρ αἰσθάνῃ πάλαι
ζῶν τοῖς θανοῦσιν οὕνεκ’ ἀνταυδᾷς ἴσα;
{ΑΙ.} Οἴμοι, > ξυνῆκα > τοὔπος· οὐ γὰρ ἔσθ’ ὅπως
ὅδ’ οὐκ Ὀρέστης ἔσθ’ ὁ προσφωνῶν ἐμέ.

Sophocles Electra Line 78
{ΗΛ.} Ἰώ μοί μοι δύστηνος.
{ΠΑ.} Καὶ μὴν θυρῶν > ἔδοξα > προσπόλων τινὸς
ὑποστενούσης ἔνδον αἰσθέσθαι, τέκνον.

Sophocles Electra Line 668
{ΠΑ.} Ὦ χαῖρ’, ἄνασσα· σοὶ φέρων ἥκω λόγους
ἡδεῖς φίλου παρ’ ἀνδρὸς Αἰγίσθῳ θ’ ὁμοῦ.
{ΚΛ.} > Ἐδεξάμην > τὸ ῥηθέν· εἰδέναι δέ σου
πρώτιστα χρῄζω τίς σ’ ἀπέστειλεν βροτῶν.

Euripides Alcestis Line 1095
{Ηρ.} αἰνῶ μὲν αἰνῶ· μωρίαν δ’ ὀφλισκάνεις.
[{Αδ.} ὡς μήποτ’ ἄνδρα τόνδε νυμφίον καλῶν.
{Ηρ.} > ἐπήινεσ> ’ ἀλόχωι πιστὸς οὕνεκ’ εἶ φίλος.]

Euripides Medea Line 70
{Μη.} Κρέων μ’ ἐλαύνει φυγάδα γῆς Κορινθίας.
{Αι.} ἐᾶι δ’ Ἰάσων; οὐδὲ ταῦτ’ > ἐπήινεσα> .

Euripides Electra Line 622
{Πρ.} Αἴγισθον εἶδον, ἡνίχ’ εἷρπον ἐνθάδε.
{Ορ.} > προσηκάμην > τὸ ῥηθέν. ἐν ποίοις τόποις;

Euripides Electra Line 644
{Πρ.} ψόγον τρέμουσα δημοτῶν ἐλείπετο.
{Ορ.} > ξυνῆχ> '· ὕποπτος οὖσα γιγνώσκει πόλει.

Euripides Helena Line 636
{Με.} ὦ φιλτάτα πρόσοψις, οὐκ > ἐμέμφθην> ·
†ἔχω τὰ τοῦ Διὸς λέκτρα Λήδας τε.†

Euripides Ion 1614
{Αθ.} > ἤινεσ> ’ οὕνεκ’ εὐλογεῖς θεὸν μεταβαλοῦσ’ †ἀεί που†
χρόνια μὲν τὰ τῶν θεῶν πως, ἐς τέλος δ’ οὐκ ἀσθενῆ.

Euripides Iphigenia Aulidensis Line 655
{Ιφ.} ἀσύνετά νυν ἐροῦμεν, εἰ σέ γ’ εὐφρανῶ.
{Αγ.} παπαῖ· τὸ σιγᾶν οὐ σθένω, σὲ δ’ > ἤινεσα> .

[1]G. Cooper Greek Syntax, vol 3, 53.6.1.A, p. 2378.

5

Sophocles Ajax Line 99
{ΑΙ.} Ὥστ’ οὔποτ’ Αἴαντ’, οἶδ’, ἀτιμάσουσ’ ἔτι.
{ΑΘ.} Τεθνᾶσιν ἅνδρες, ὡς τὸ σὸν ξυνῆκ’ ἐγώ.

Finglass calls this as well an instantaneous aorist. But I’m not sure we have to read ξυνῆκ’ as a speech act; the way I see it, “understanding” can be seen as happening anterior to speaking.

I sort of preferred it before you edited out the part of the research assistant on weed… :slight_smile: I wonder how many mistakes your book has.

6

RE: Mistakes in Cooper, plenty of referential errors in the index. I draw a line through them in pencil so the next owner of the books will not waste time following them.

IMHO, Finglass has a more readable style than Cooper. I have to translate Cooper in order to understand what it says. Cooper’s whole concept of Syntax is pre-modern. He writes as if Chomsky never existed. There is no excuse for that in a work published in the 1990s.

I had Finglass on several occasions while reading Ajax. It was well over my head. The target audience being classical philologists.

7

I know how revered NC is in Canada and USA, and he used to be in vogue in Europe, too (he still is in some circles), but often I feel the field of linguistics would be better off if NC had never existed. Said in jest, but hits on the crux of the matter: »According to generative linguists, all languages are essentially English.»

8

Yes, I worded that wrong. It isn’t about early, middle or late Chomksky. Between the time of Saussure and and the 1990s there was some useful work done on syntax. A fair amount of this useful work was actually motivated by a rejection of Generative Grammar. I have now been reading Cooper for a long time and have yet to detect even a whiff (a slight remote indication) of any 20th century ideas about syntax.

9

At the library yesterday I took a look at Finglass’ Ajax commentary (unfortunately I can’t borrow it, and I’m not going to buy it), and admit to being a little disappointed in it after my high expectations. He’s good on the language, though, and surface interpretation.

Discussing Ajax’ speech at 430ff. he says (at least twice) that Ajax compares his achievements unfavorably with his father’s. But this is wrong, isn’t it? Ajax claims that his achievements—his deeds at Troy—were just as great as his father’s (439 ουδ’ εργα μειω). That’s his point. This is a compare-and-contrast exercise. He deserved no less great recognition from his fellow-Greeks than his father rightly received. But did he get it? No! They dishonored him (by not awarding him the arms of Achilles he so richly deserved, 441-6): 440 ατιμος Αργειοισιν ωδ’ απολλυμαι.

10

“He’s good on the language, though, and surface interpretation.” He studiously avoids any deeper interpretation. I think he intentionally leaves that to the reader, on the assumption that his readership is very advanced and has read plenty of secondary material. Personally, I probably would have benefited from some discussion of the play’s meaning or at least how it has been explained by others.

By the way, I’ve read through Bernard Williams’ Shame and Necessity, which is one of the most illuminating books I’ve ever read about Greek literature and philosophy. He has interesting things to say about Ajax as well as other plays of Sophocles, and he enhanced my understanding of the play immensely. It’s not easy reading, however, and I’m reading it a second time.

11

Just dropping by to say that I finished the play a couple of days ago. I’m on a holiday trip now and won’t be posting much, but I think I’ll come back to the interpretation of the play at some point (reading Barrett’s Hippolytus now, when not doing “holiday stuff”). I think I agree with Hylander that Finglass avoids discussing interpretation, which I missed a bit as well.

12

Hippolytus is next, then?

13

Personally I’d rather do Eurip’s Bacchae or Soph’s Philoctetes, both of which have illuminating connexions with the Ajax (madness and gods and asebeia in Bac., Ajax-like character and a more true-to-type Odysseus in Phil.) and are arguably the best things the two playwrights ever did—and it’s high time I reread them. But I’d be happy enough with Hipp., another play with gods and impiety, and a nice family drama, with no sex.

14

As posters have already started talking about “the next play to be read” does this mean there is no interest in further discussion of this play?

In particular I would have thought there was something to say about Tekmessa’s appropriation (485 ff) of Hektors’s speech in Iliad 6. Finglass isnt actually interested it seems in exploring the implications of this despite announcing that he is. This refocusing from a male perspective to a female surely has some implications for how we read both texts.

At the moment I am not able to spend a lot of time thinking about Greek but I hope next month to be able to have some spare time so that I can get back to the text, either on my own or if there is interest on the board here.

15

There’s more to Tecmessa’s appeal to Ajax than its being an “appropriation” of Hector’s reply to Andromache’s appeal in Il.6, but obviously that Homeric scene has a very strong presence. The differences stand out, among them the transfer of what Hector says onto Tecmessa herself, as seneca implies. (Viewed typologically, however, Hector’s speech itself amounts to an appropriation of Andromache’s potential speech; Sophocles restores the norm.) I think what this brings out most of all is the contrast between the two men, particularly the distinctiveness of Ajax’ character and predicament. Both women appeal directly to their man’s pity, and both men reject the plea, but Hector explicitly justifies the rejection and himself anticipates his wife’s pitiful future—something that Ajax cannot or will not do.

Tecmessa’s more conventional appeal relies on the prospect of the future disgrace that Ajax and his γενος (father, mother, son; + descendants down to Sophocles’ day?) will incur for having left her to her fate. That shaming exercise is bound to be ineffectual, for what overwhelmingly matters for Ajax, as the play has made abundantly clear, to us if not to Tecmessa, is his present (undeserved) disgrace, leaving him with no honorable course of action other than ending his life. This situational distinction between Hector and Ajax is brought out in Ajax’ preceding speech on which I commented above (faulting Finglass’s misunderstanding of it) and also in the following scene with his son (who I’d assume was invented to match Hector’s), and to my mind it’s crucial.

16

Sophocles’ “appropriation” of Homer: Of the few tragedies I’ve read, the Ajax follows Homer most closely in its depiction of characters and references to preceding events – except for Ajax himself. It’s true that Sophocles’ Ajax can be recognized in the sulking hero Odysseus meets in Hades in Od. book 11, but to me the Ajax of the Iliad is a much brighter and more optimistic character than in this play (as far as I remember at least). So apparently Sophocles is drawing on other sources as well, the Epic Cycle perhaps?

I didn’t get beyond the introduction of Hippolytos during my holiday trip, but I’ll definitely read that play next, as I’ve already got Barrett’s commentary following an earlier recommendation by mwh (and others). Philoctetes is next on the list, and I’d like to read Bacchae as well, as I’ve actually read the first half of the play a couple of years back.

17

I think the Homeric Ajax is perfectly recognizable in Sophocles’ depiction. Sophocles doesn’t need to tweak him more than a little, to make his μεγαλοφροσυνη a cause of offence to Athena. Of course he had many other sources too, esp. for the circumstances of the Judgment of Arms, and most of these are lost to us except for summaries and fragments, but for the portrayal of Ajax himself Homer is surely definitive, as I’ve tried to suggest in previous posts. To be sure “the Ajax of the Iliad is a much brighter and more optimistic character than in this play,” but that’s because his situation has changed. In the Iliad he hasn’t yet been defeated/cheated by Odysseus over the arms of Achilles and dishonored. The Ajax of the Iliad would have taken that very hard, as indeed the Odyssey’s underworld scene shows he did. Sophocles follows the Homeric script, combining Ajax’s Iliadic character with his Odyssean unrelenting anger at Odysseus. The only difference is that the god responsible for Ajax’ death is now not Zeus as in the Odyssey (very poorly motivated) but Athena (much more plausible and coherent, given her special relationship with Odysseus).

18

There’s more to Tecmessa’s appeal to Ajax than its being an “appropriation” of Hector’s reply to Andromache’s appeal in Il.6, but obviously that Homeric scene has a very strong presence.

Well of course there is. But there is something to be said for thinking a little more closely about the gender politics of the appropriation. Hektor ventriloquises Andromache and deprives her of her opportunity to say how she views the future. Tecmessa is allowed to voice those fears of the future herself. What you view as “Tecmessa’s more conventional appeal” , can be read against the background of Pericles’s funeral oration in which women are to be praised (if one ought to praise them at all) if they are silent and not spoken of. So in this light her speech is entirely unconventional. So it seems to me unclear that “Sophocles restores the norm”.

Tecmessa has already experienced what Andromache will endure and so she has no difficulty in imagining what her fate will be. However good her rhetoric she is of course bound to fail because Ajax is immovable. But Hektor too is immovable. I see perhaps a much greater connexion between Ajax and Hektor. The gifts that they exchange are instruments of one’s death and the others degradation. Of course we can find differences too.

I will think about what you say about Ajax’s speech and Finglass. I am currently a bit preoccupied with other stuff.

19

Accusing Hector’s empathetic response of depriving her of the opportunity to speak for herself is hard to beat as an exemplification of contemporary gender politics. I wouldn’t call that “thinking a little more closely.”


What you view as “Tecmessa’s more conventional appeal” , can be read against the background of Pericles’s funeral oration in which women are to be praised (if one ought to praise them at all) if they are silent and not spoken of. So in this light her speech is entirely unconventional. So it seems to me unclear that “Sophocles restores the norm”.

Sorry this wasn’t clear. Typologically, I meant. A petitioner conventionally makes the strongest case s/he can. Homer’s Androm doesn’t do that, but Soph’s Tecmessa does.
You won’t find many women in tragedy conforming to Periclean prescriptions or Athenian cultural norms. From that standpoint all tragedy is “entirely unconventional.” Isn’t that part of its point? Ironically (or not?), it’s Ajax who perfectly reflects Pericles’ position (or vice versa?): γυναικι κοσμον ἡ σιγη φερει.

20

Accusing Hector’s empathetic response of depriving her of the opportunity to speak for herself is hard to beat as an exemplification of contemporary gender politics. I wouldn’t call that “thinking a little more closely.”

If that’s what I had done I would have agreed with you. There was no accusation in my post but a comparison between the two texts. As you well know intertextuality sets up a discourse which changes the meaning of both texts. I am happy to read Hektor as silencing Hecuba and being empathetic. Just as I can read tecmessa as both conventionally taking the role of supplicant (thanks for your clarification) and speaking against gender type in the context of fifth century Athens. Yes tragedy is disruptive and deals with contested ideas. If the role of women was beyond doubt why would there be so many gender transgressive roles. Medea and Clytemnestra for example? I see Ajax as in part a tragedy about masculinity. Others may wish to be reminded that all the female roles were played and sung by men.

On reflection and without wishing to take back anything I have said everything I say has to be “contemporary” even when I am quoting ancient authors or writing about gender politics, there is no other way to understand things. All our reconstructions close readings or historicism etc have to be contemporary.