7706-05 Harder En Cuypers.Qxd

INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE IN APOLLONIUS AND HOMER

Martijn Cuypers

1. Introduction Apollonius of Rhodes is in many ways a typical epic narrator. He relates a story about the remote past, at length, in hexameter verse; he is omniscient, omnipresent, and anonymous; he uses virtually every narrative technique found in the Iliad and Odyssey. Yet on closer inspection, the Argonautica’s narrative voice differs from that of the Homeric epics in important ways. Notably, whereas ‘Homer’ operates largely in the background, Apollonius directs his narrative in an overt and self-conscious manner, and engages in a pervasive and variegated dialogue with his narratees, his sources, the Muses, and other divinities.1 In this paper I will explore this crucial difference from a linguistic perspective. Starting from a survey of particle usage in the Iliad, Odyssey, and Argonautica which distinguishes between words spoken by the narrator (‘narrator-text’) and by characters (‘character-text’), I will analyze how the micro-level of the text reflects the covertness and ‘monophonicity’ of Homer and the overt- ness and ‘diaphonicity’ of Apollonius. My emphasis will be on those particles which are primarily concerned with the interactional level of discourse, i.e. particles which (besides the grammatical and [re]presentational functions which they may also have) address the intentions, beliefs, attitudes, emotions, expectations, commitment or knowledge (general and contextual) of the speaker and/or his addressee (in epic: the narrator and his narratees) with respect to the mes- sage exchanged, and so modify the communication between them. I will refer to these particles as ‘interactional particles’.2 In epic, they include pou (poyi), mÆn/mãn/m°n, ∑, dÆ (d∞yen), toi, and yhn.3 These particles have no clear semantic meaning and can only be satisfactorily described in terms of pragmatic or conversational primitives, such as ‘calling for special attention’, ‘expressing commitment’, ‘assuming common ground’ or ‘anticipating disbelief’. Some primarily pertain to the position of the

1. See Berkowitz (2004); Clare (2002); Cuypers (2004); Hunter (2001; 2002), all with references to earlier literature. 2. Other terms in use are ‘modal (situating)’, ‘attitudinal’, ‘pragmatic’, and ‘phatic’. 3. The list at Cuypers (2004: 56 n.25) requires correction. 36 MARTIJN CUYPERS speaker with regard to the utterance (‘speaker-oriented’), others to the expected or desired reception by the addressee (‘addressee-oriented’); a third group affects both parties (‘bidirectional’). My descriptions of individual particles are based on Sicking (1993), with the silent assumption that their value in epic is basically the same as in Attic.4 The analytical model which these descriptions presuppose has been set out most elaborately by Kroon (1995), and is rooted in functionally oriented linguistics (pragmatics, discourse linguistics). With Bakhtin and the ‘Geneva school’ of linguistics (e.g. Roulet a.o. 1985), it regards the words of the central reporter of a narrative as a ‘move’ in a fictitious ‘exchange’ or dialogue, which is mostly implicit but can become visible on occasion. The monological sections of an epic (narrator-text, narrative) may display a greater or smaller number of dialogal features, i.e. signs of a communicative exchange between the narrator and an addressee. In the terminology of Kroon, monological passages which contain signs of the presence of a silent interlocutor, i.e. a ‘you’ who is addressed but does not actively participate in the discourse (narratees, characters, Muses and other divinities), are “diaphonic discourse”; signs of inter- action between the narrator and such a second party are “signs of diaphony”. These signs include first and second person verbs and pronouns, present and future tense verbs, questions and directives, exclamations and vocatives, and metadiscursive and evaluative expressions of all kinds, including interactional particles.5 We will see that these particles (like other signs of diaphony) are far more common in the narrator-text of the Argonautica than in that of the Homeric epics, where some of them are virtually absent, others restricted to a small number of contexts.

2. The Table The table on pp. 38-40 shows: N1, C1, total: the number of instances of each particle (in the Argonau- tica, Iliad, and Odyssey) in narrator-text, character-text, and the poem as a whole; 4. This assumption is shared by Denniston (1954). 5. See Kroon (1995: 7-125, esp. 43-4 [semantic approaches to particles], 61-2 [levels of discourse], 89-95 [interactional level of discourse], 97-102 [descriptional model for particles], 109-15 [discourse types, diaphony]; also 1994: 304-9). Pragmatic descriptions of Greek interactional particles are offered by Sicking (1993: 51-66); van Ophuijsen (1993: 71-88); Wakker (1994: 308-64; 1996: 247-51; 1997). On particles as a word-class see Denniston (1954: xxxvii-xlii); Sicking (1993: 5-8); Wakker (1996: 247-9). On discourse markers in general see Roulet a.o. (1985); Schiffrin (1987); Fraser (1990); Jucker and Ziv (1998). For a narratological approach to discourse types see de Jong (1987: 29-40, 136-47; 2004: 1-10). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 37

N2, C2: the frequency of each particle in narrator- and character-text (e.g. éllã Arg. N2 = 271 means ‘once in every 271 words’); N3, C3: the relative frequency of each particle in the Iliad and Odyssey in narrator- and character-text as compared to the Argonautica (> 1 more frequent, < 1 less frequent); N : C: the comparative frequency of each particle in narrator- and character- text (e.g. éllã Arg. 1 : 2.12 means ‘2.12 times as frequent in character- text’). The particle and word counts provided for the Homeric epics are those of Duhoux (1998), unless otherwise indicated in the discussion below. Those for the Argonautica are based on an electronic version of Vian’s edition (1974-96) and have been checked against Campbell’s index (1983). Frequencies under N2/C2 are based on the following word totals: words in: narrator-text character-text total N : C Arg. 27,900 70.4% 1,1729 29.6% 39,629 2.38 : 1 Il. 60,773 54.3% 5,1088 45.7% 111,861 1.19 : 1 Od. 27,120 31.4% 5,9240 68.6% 86,360 1 : 2.18 The three poems have a very different ratio of narrator- and character- text, and (as one glance at pp. 38-40 will show) only very few particles are equally frequent in both discourse types. Therefore it seems pointless to calculate particle frequencies for the poems as a whole or to compare the three works in absolute numbers.6 The frequencies that are given should also be handled with extreme care. First and foremost, the data do not take into account the presence of different discourse types within the categories narrator- and narrator-text. Most importantly, they neglect that characters’ speeches may include narration.7 In such embedded narratives characters speak more like (though not exactly the same as) the primary narrator than they do in dialogue.8 Other factors which may create a mis- leading picture include the use of particles in fixed, repeated expressions (formulas), the low frequency of many particles, and numerous issues of inclusion/exclusion and distinction, such as widely different uses of one and the same particle, textual variants, and differences between editions in word-division and spelling. Where relevant, such problems are indicated

6. In his overarching argument, Duhoux (1998: 19-20) does not consider the differences between the Iliad and Odyssey with respect to discourse types nor does he distinguish between different types of particles. Blomqvist (1969: 132-47) does not distinguish between narrator-text and character-text at all. In both cases this leads to unhelpful conclusions. 7. It is mainly to keep this problem in view that I will steer clear of the shortcuts ‘narrative’ and ‘speech’ and use the terms ‘narrator-text’ and ‘character-text’ throughout. 8. This caveat is especially relevant for the Odyssey, which contains long narratives by Odysseus, Nestor, and Menelaus (Od. 9-12, 3, and 4). 38 MARTIJN CUYPERS

text N1 N2 N3 C1 C2 C3 total N : C

éllã Arg. 103 271 1.00 92 127 1.00 195 1 : 2.12 Il. 227 268 1.01 548 93 1.37 775 1 : 2.87 Od. 66 411 0.66 588 101 1.27 654 1 : 4.08

êra Arg. 137 204 1.00 13 902 1.00 150 4.43 : 1 Il. 590 103 1.98 64 798 1.13 654 7.75 : 1 Od. 420 65 3.15 89 666 1.36 509 10.3 : 1 =a Arg. 96 291 1.00 9 1303 1.00 105 4.48 : 1 Il. 331 184 1.58 70 730 1.79 401 3.98 : 1 Od. 139 195 1.49 76 779 1.67 215 4.00 : 1 êr Arg. 2 13950 1.00 2 5865 1.00 4 1 : 2.38 Il. 9 6753 2.07 20 2554 2.30 29 1 : 2.64 Od. 3 9040 1.54 21 2821 2.08 24 1 : 3.20

étãr Arg. 15 1860 1.00 6 1955 1.00 21 1.05 : 1 Il. 32 1899 0.98 47 1087 1.80 79 1 : 1.75 Od. 7 3874 0.48 44 1346 1.45 51 1 : 2.88

aÈtãr Arg. 83 336 1.00 18 652 1.00 101 1.94 : 1 Il. 257 236 1.42 104 491 1.33 361 2.08 : 1 Od. 148 183 1.83 255 232 2.80 403 1.27 : 1

aÔ Arg. 24 1163 1.00 5 2346 1.00 29 2.02 : 1 Il. 38 1599 0.73 38 1344 1.74 76 1 : 1.19 Od. 61 445 2.61 31 1911 1.23 92 4.30 : 1 aÔte Arg. 33 845 1.00 6 1955 1.00 39 2.31 : 1 Il. 128 475 1.78 76 672 2.91 204 1.42 : 1 Od. 111 244 3.46 45 1316 1.48 156 5.39 : 1

gãr Arg. 128 218 1.00 101 116 1.00 229 1 : 1.88 Il. 251 242 0.90 514 99 1.17 765 1 : 2.44 Od. 83 327 0.67 574 103 1.13 639 1 : 3.17

ge Arg. 185 151 1.00 78 150 1.00 263 1 : 1.00 Il. 220 276 0.55 334 153 0.98 554 1 : 1.81 Od. 87 312 0.48 407 146 1.03 494 1 : 2.14

d° Arg. 1703 16.4 1.00 377 31.1 1.00 2080 1.90 : 1 Il. 4615 13.2 1.24 1851 27.6 1.13 6466 2.10 : 1 Od. 2199 12.3 1.33 2253 26.3 1.18 4452 2.13 : 1

dÆ Arg. 124 225 1.00 67 175 1.00 191 1 : 1.29 Il. 166 366 0.61 312 164 1.07 478 1 : 2.24 Od. 95 285 0.79 401 148 1.18 496 1 : 1.93 INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 39

text N1 N2 N3 C1 C2 C3 total N : C d∞yen Arg. 3 9300 1.00 5 2346 1.00 8 1 : 3.96 Il. 0 —— 0 —— 0 — Od. 0 —— 0 —— 0 — d∞ta Arg. 0 —— 1 11729 1.00 1 0.00 : 1 Il. 0 —— 0 —— 0 — Od. 0 —— 0 —— 0 —

∑ Arg. 15 1860 1.00 35 335 1.00 50 1 : 5.55 (affirm./ Il. 6 10129 0.18 186 275 1.22 192 1 : 36.9 interrog.) Od. 2 13560 0.14 136 436 0.77 138 1 : 31.1

≥/∑/ Arg. 68 410 1.00 59 199 1.00 127 1 : 2.06 ±°/∑e Il. 104 584 0.70 301 170 1.17 405 1 : 3.44 (other uses) Od. 49 553 0.74 330 180 1.11 379 1 : 3.08

±d° Arg. 44 634 1.00 22 533 1.00 66 1 : 1.19 Il. 107 568 1.12 151 338 1.58 258 1 : 1.68 Od. 92 295 2.15 168 353 1.51 260 1.20 : 1

±m°n Arg. 6 4650 1.00 0 —— 6 6.00 : 0 Il. 11 5525 0.84 18 2838 1.00 29 1 : 1.95 Od. 9 3013 1.54 16 3703 0.77 25 1.23 : 1

≥toi/ Arg. 18 1550 1.00 6 1955 1.00 24 1.26 : 1 ∑ toi Il. 44 1381 1.12 61 838 2.33 105 1 : 1.65 Od. 16 1695 0.91 73 812 2.41 89 1 : 2.09 yhn Arg. 0 —— 2 5865 1.00 3 0 : 2.00 Il. 0 —— 13 3930 1.49 13 0 : 13.0 Od. 0 —— 3 19747 0.30 3 0 : 3.00

ﬁd° Arg. 1 27900 1.00 0 —— 1 1 : 0.00 Il. 19 3199 8.72 5 10218 1.00 24 3.19 : 1 Od. 4 6780 4.12 6 9873 1.03 10 1.46 : 1 ka¤ Arg. 608 45.9 1.00 293 40.0 1.00 901 1 : 1.15 Il. 1327 45.8 1.00 1525 33.5 1.19 2852 1 : 1.37 Od. 642 42.2 1.09 1774 33.4 1.20 2416 1 : 1.27 m°n Arg. 270 103 1.00 109 108 1.00 379 1.04 : 1 Il. 569 107 0.97 491 104 1.03 1060 1 : 1.03 Od. 223 122 0.85 581 102 1.06 804 1 : 1.19 mÆn/ Arg. 8 3488 1.00 7 1676 1.00 15 1 : 2.08 mãn Il. 3 20258 0.17 26 1965 0.85 29 1 : 10.3 Od. 0 —— 6 9873 0.17 6 0 : 6.00 40 MARTIJN CUYPERS

text N1 N2 N3 C1 C2 C3 total N : C

mhd° Arg. 2 13950 1.00 28 419 1.00 30 1 : 33.3 Il. 3 20258 0.69 49 1043 0.40 52 1 : 19.4 Od. 1 27120 0.51 57 1039 0.40 58 1 : 26.1 mÆte Arg. 2 13950 1.00 6 1955 1.00 8 1 : 7.14 Il. 0 —— 19 2689 0.73 19 0 : 19.0 Od. 0 —— 18 3291 0.59 18 0 : 18.0

nu(n) Arg. 19 1468 1.00 23 510 1.00 42 1 : 2.88 Il. 20 3039 0.48 73 700 0.73 93 1 : 4.34 Od. 6 4520 0.32 55 1077 0.47 61 1 : 4.20

oÔn Arg. 10 2790 1.00 8 1466 1.00 18 1 : 1.90 Il. 34 1787 1.56 14 3649 0.40 48 2.04 : 1 Od. 22 1233 2.26 14 4231 0.35 36 3.43 : 1

oÈd° Arg. 130 215 1.00 75 156 1.00 205 1 : 1.37 Il. 289 210 1.02 362 141 1.11 651 1 : 1.49 Od. 74 366 0.59 381 155 1.01 455 1 : 2.36 oÎte Arg. 27 1033 1.00 8 1466 1.00 35 1.42 : 1 Il. 43 1413 0.73 98 521 2.81 141 1 : 2.71 Od. 13 2086 0.50 145 409 3.59 158 1 : 5.11

per Arg. 50 558 1.00 40 293 1.00 90 1 : 1.90 Il. 77 789 0.71 250 204 1.43 327 1 : 3.86 Od. 27 1004 0.56 177 335 0.88 204 1 : 3.00

pou Arg. 18 1550 1.00 10 1173 1.00 28 1 : 1.32 Il. 7 8682 0.18 60 851 1.38 67 1 : 10.2 Od. 4 6780 0.23 91 651 1.80 95 1 : 10.4 poyi Arg. 2 13950 1.00 4 2932 1.00 6 1 : 4.76 Il. 1 60773 0.23 7 7298 0.40 8 1 : 8.33 Od. 0 —— 13 4557 0.64 13 0 : 12.0

te Arg. 484 57.6 1.00 222 52.8 1.00 706 1 : 1.09 Il. 1371 44.3 1.30 933 54.8 0.96 2304 1.24 : 1 Od. 526 51.6 1.12 1236 47.9 1.10 1762 1 : 1.08

toi Arg. 5 5580 1.00 59 199 1.00 64 1 : 28.1 Il. 7 8682 0.64 326 157 1.27 333 1 : 55.4 Od. 1 27120 0.21 457 130 1.53 458 1 : 209.

toigãr Arg. 0 —— 0 —— 0 — Il. 0 —— 3 17029 1.00 3 0 : 3.00 Od. 0 —— 18 3291 5.17 18 0 : 18.0 INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 41 in the discussion below. In general, the table should not be read as a serious statistical product, but as a heuristic tool to spot tendencies in the use of certain particles or types of particles, to be checked by analyzing the actual instances. I will offer such analyses for pou (§3), mÆn (§4), ∑ (§5), dÆ (§6), yhn (§7), toi (§8), and ≥toi (§9), and add some comments on the table entries for a number of connectives (such as d°, aÈtãr, ka¤, and te) and scope particles (such as ge and per) at the end (§11).

3. Pou and poyi Used as an interactional particle (as opposed to as a local adverb), pou and its equivalent poyi accompany utterances on which a speaker does not want to be pinned down – in the words of Sicking (1993: 59): “with pou a speaker presents his statement as a surmise whose accuracy he does not vouch for (“perhaps”, “I suppose”) so that disputing it need not impair the basis for an understanding between the two partners in the conversation.”9 From this description it is easy to explain why pou is virtually absent from Homeric narrator-text. In the overarching communicative fiction of the Iliad and Odyssey, the narrator does not compose the narrative on his own authority, but ‘relays’ what the Muses have told him. This fiction requires that he does not argue but state, and not surmise but know. Pou and poyi are omitted by Duhoux (1998). In my table entries I have made no attempt to weed out the instances which require or allow a local interpretation (“somewhere”), because in a fair number of passages pou and poyi can be taken either way, and the distribution over narrator-text and character-text suggests that even where they are primarily local, an interactional nuance is present in the background. Local use of pou/poyi in narrator-text is very limited: there are no instances of poyi that allow a local interpretation in any of the three epics, and none of pou in the Argo- nautica;10 in the Iliad and Odyssey, local pou (10×) occurs only in secon- dary focalization, in contexts which (with a single exception) also allow an interactional interpretation, such as: (1) dizhm°nh/ow/ır«menow e‡ pou §feÊroi… Il. 4.88/5.168/13.760/Od. 5.43911

9. See further Sicking (1993: 57-61); Wakker (1994: 357-60); Denniston (1954: 490-5); for Apollonius, Campbell (1994: 207); Hunter (1993a: 108-9; 1989: 123, 199, 207, 254). 10. Note, however, that there is also only a single instance of pou in character-text (1.444), and that even there it has an interactional nuance: see at the end of this section. 11. Likewise: Il. 3.450 (én' ˜milon §fo¤ta … e‡ pou §sayrÆseien), 13.456 (mermÆrijen ≥ tinã pou Tr≈vn •tar¤ssaito), 17.681 (dine¤syhn … e‡ pou … ‡doito), Od. 4.639 (oÈ går ¶fanto §w PÊlon o‡xesyai…, éllã pou aÈtoË … par°mmenai), 18.7 (épagg°lleske ki≈n, ˜te poÊ tiw én≈goi), 22.25 (pãntose papta¤nontew …: oÈd° pou ésp‹w ¶hn oÈd' êlkimon ¶gxow •l°syai). Only in this last passage pou cannot also be translated as “perhaps”. 42 MARTIJN CUYPERS

This leaves for Homeric narrator-text one instance each of pou and poyi in the vehicle of a simile: (2) …w d' ˜te poÊ tiw yhrhtØr kÊnaw érgiÒdontaw seÊ˙ §p' égrot°rƒ su˛ kapr¤ƒ ±¢ l°onti, ktl. Il. 11.292-3 (3) …w d' ˜t' ín éstrãpt˙ pÒsiw ÜHrhw ±#kÒmoio teÊxvn µ polÁn ˆmbron éy°sfaton ±¢ xãlazan (…) ±° poyi ptol°moio m°ga stÒma peukedano›o, ktl. Il. 10.5-6/8 Here it is still possible to translate “somewhere”,12 but since this reduces pou/poyi to a rather empty addition, it seems safe to say that the line between local and particular use has been crossed, and that the narrator allows himself a slight breech of protocol: he does not withold his commitment to the accuracy of a story element (events, facts, characters’ thoughts, etc.) but to the accuracy of an image chosen to visualize such an element – indeed a more arbitrary part of the narrative than most others. There can be little doubt that Apollonius took (2-3) in this way: he uses pou in four similes. As in (2), it qualifies the vehicle as a whole in: (4) ¶rneã pou to¤vw, DiÚw êspeton ÙmbrÆsantow, futaliª neÒyrepta kathmÊousin ¶raze.13 Arg. 3.1399-400 I suppose it is in this way that young shoots, when Zeus rains incessantly, are bent to the ground in an orchard.14 As in (3), pou indicates the equivalence of different vehicles or alternative details of a vehicle in: (5) oﬂ d', Àw t' ±¤yeoi Fo¤bƒ xorÚn µ §n‹ Puyo› ≥ pou §n ÉOrtug¤˙ µ §f' Ïdasin ÉIsmhno›o sthsãmenoi, ktl. Arg. 1.536-8 And they, just as young men set up the dance in Phoebus’ honor at Pytho or perhaps Ortygia or by the waters of Ismenus (…).15 (6) ±el¤ou Àw t¤w te dÒmoiw §nipãlletai a‡glh, Ïdatow §janioËsa tÚ dØ n°on ±¢ l°bhti ±° pou §n gaul“ k°xutai, ktl. Arg. 3.756-8 Just like, indoors, a sunbeam is reflected out of water that has just been poured into a bowl or perhaps a bucket (…). (7) êlla m¢n ÖArei e‡kelow, êlla d° pou xrusaÒrƒ ÉApÒllvni. Arg. 3.1282-3 (…) resembling in some ways Ares, in others perhaps Apollo of the golden sword.

12. So e.g. W.A. Beck, LfgrE pou B1baaaa, for Il. 11.292. 13. Interestingly, the direct model of this passage appears in character-text: Od. 4.74 “ZhnÒw pou toiÆde g' ÉOlump¤ou ¶ndoyen aÈlÆ”. 14. My Argonautica-translations are generally based on Hunter (1993b), with adaptations to bring out the force of the particle under discussion, and borrowings from Seaton and Green. The translations of Homer are based on Lattimore, also with adaptations. 15. This passage too is inspired by a Homeric instance of pou in character-text: Il. 16.514-5 “klËyi ênaj ˜w pou Luk¤hw §n p¤oni dÆmƒ | e‚w µ §n‹ Tro¤˙”. INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 43

In these similes pou has an amusing effect. In (5) we are to remember that in 1.418-9, Jason had promised to bring “countless offerings to Pytho, countless to Ortygia”. In other words, despite the suggestion created by pou, this is by no means a random list of options. “Or perhaps Apollo” in (7) is quite curious, seeing that Jason is likened to Apollo throughout the poem. In (6), however, it does appear that the options are completely ex- changeable, and that the choice of vessel is irrelevant to the image. It is attractive to think that pou is a deliberate attempt at misdirection. Offering the choice is begging the question. Why do we need both a cauldron and a bucket here? Unless there is a subtle point that all commentators have missed, I would say that we are here tricked into searching for meaning where there is none.16 Another example of pou in Argonautic narrator-text occurs in a con- ditional clause after evaluative (i.e. diaphonic) sx°tliow. This use too is relatively unremarkable: pou merely emphasizes the uncertainty that is already inherent in conditionals.17 (8) sx°tliow, µn gãr poÊ ti yemisteÊvn él¤thtai, lim“ min ke›n' ∑mar §nikle¤santew ¶xousi. Arg. 2.1028-9 The poor wretch! For if perhaps in some way he goes astray in his judgements, they lock him up and keep him hungry for that day. The other fourteen instances of pou/poyi (13:1) are more remarkable, in fact even disturbing. Eight times the narrator adds pou to a statement about the motivation, feelings or thoughts of characters, thereby acknow- ledging that he infers these mental processes from their actions. This is a good strategy for a historian, but it undermines the credibility of an epic narrator.18 The omniscient epic narrator should know what goes on in the heads of his characters. Not so Apollonius:19

16. Additionally, pou in these similes, as in many other passages discussed below, may create a subtle suggestion of live composition and presentation: we see the narrator searching for the right image, toying with possibilities, unable to choose. 17. On pou in conditionals (in Homeric character-text e.g. Od. 2.71) see Wakker (1994: 357-60). Compare also Apollonius’ use of ∑ after sx°tliow in §5.14-6, below. 18. Compare the use of kou = pou in Herodotus, discussed by Sicking (1993: 57-9). Interestingly, Apollonius outdoes Herodotus, with whom kou is almost limited to indica- tions of time, place, size, and number (only very rarely of perceptions or events). 19. Compare also: Arg. 1.1037 (“believing, I suppose, that he [i.e. Cyzicus] was now beyond the reach of any grim disaster that the heroes could inflict”), 1023 (“but I suppose the Doliones imagined that a Pelasgian war-force of Macrians had landed”), 1140 (“the goddess Rhea was, I suppose, well disposed towards the holy sacrifices: favorable signs appeared”), 2.607 (“after their release from chilling fear, I suppose the Argonauts breathed more easily”), 4.319 (for seafaring ships were something they had never seen before, I suppose). See also Hunter (1993a: 108-9); Cuypers (2004: 51). This use of pou is very common in Quintus’ Posthomerica, but nearly absent from Nonnus’ Dionysiaca (I found only 41.72, in a context that is strongly indebted to the Argonautica). 44 MARTIJN CUYPERS

(9) fån gãr pou flkãnein | YrÆikaw. Arg. 1.636-7 For [the Lemnian women] thought, I suppose, that the Thracians had come. (10) §gÆyhsen d¢ keleÊyƒ ÉAmpuk¤dhw, ≥dh pou Ùissãmenow tå ßkasta. Arg. 3.925-6 The son of Ampyx rejoiced in the journey; I suppose he already knew the whole outcome. (11) aÈtÒn pou megalvst‹ dedoupÒtow ÉAcÊrtoio Z∞na, ye«n basil∞a, xÒlow lãben, oÂon ¶rejan. Arg. 4.557-8 After Apsyrtus’ excessive death Zeus himself, I suppose, was seized by anger at what [the Argonauts] had done. Anonymous speeches are a legitimate epic device. They convey the general feeling among the characters involved in an event as it could have been expressed by any one of them. However, it is at least somewhat counter-productive to emphasize the hypothetical status of such a speech with pou, as Apollonius does in:20 (12) ka¤ poÊ tiw diero›w §p‹ xe¤lesin e‰pen fianye¤w: ktl. Arg. 4.1457 And I suppose one Argonaut said to another in delight, through wetted lips: (…). Just as an epic narrator should know what happens in the heads of his characters, he should know the facts of his story, and not deduce them as a historian does. However, the remaining five pou/poyi-clauses in Argonautic narrator-text convey an assumed story detail, sometimes followed by the arguments on which the narrator’s assumption is based: (13) èrmo› pou kéke¤nƒ ÍpostaxÊeskon ‡ouloi: oÈd° nÊ pv pa¤dessin égallÒmenow memÒrhto, éll' ¶ti ofl katå d≈mat' ékÆratow ∑en êkoitiw | »d¤nvn. Arg. 1.972-5 [Cyzicus] too, I suppose, was just showing the first beard of manhood. In any case he had not yet been blessed with children, but in his palace his wife was untouched by the pains of child-bearing. (14) dØ gãr pou kéke›na yeå tr°fen afinå p°lvra ÜHrh, ZhnÚw êkoitiw, é°ylion ÑHrakl∞i. Arg. 1.996-7 For I guess these terrible monsters, too, had been kept by Zeus’s wife Hera as a labor for Heracles. (15) ofl d° pou êrti numfãvn ·stanto xoro¤: m°le gãr sfisi pãsaiw ˜ssai ke›s' §ratÚn NÊmfai =¤on émfen°monto ÖArtemin §nnux¤˙sin ée‹ m°lpesyai éoida›w. Arg. 1.1222-5 They were probably just arranging their nymphal dance, for all the nymphs who in- habited that lovely ridge were accustomed every night to honor Artemis with songs. (16) ≤ d' êr' Ïdvr pror°eske, tÚ m°n poyi duom°n˙sin y°rmeto Plhiãdessin, émoibhd‹w d' énioÊsaiw

20. Compare Hdt. 5.1.3 ka‹ e‰pãn kou parå sf¤si aÈto›si; contrast Arg. 2.144 ka‹ dÆ tiw ¶pow metå to›sin ¶eipen (see §6). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 45

krustãllƒ ‡kelon ko¤lhw énekÆkie p°trhw. Arg. 3.225-7 A fourth spring streamed water which, I suppose, was hot when the Pleiads set but, in turn, bubbled up from the hollow rock as cold as ice when they rose. (17) Âjon d' ﬂerÚn p°don, ⁄ ¶ni Lãdvn eﬁs°ti pou xyizÚn pagxrÊsea =Êeto m∞la. Arg. 4.1396-7 They came to the sacred plain, where until yesterday, I suppose, Ladon had been guarding the golden apples. The last two instances are particularly interesting. (16) forms part of the description of Aeetes’ palace as perceived by Jason and the other Argo- naut embassadors. Since they saw this marvelous spring at one specific point in time, they saw it in only one of its states, not both, and this surely explains the insertion of pou.21 (17) is shortly followed by a statement by one of the Hesperides that “yesterday some man came” (≥luye går xyizÒn tiw énÆr, 1436) who killed the snake and stole the apples”. Thus Apol- lonius takes the authority paradox which he has created to an absurd con- clusion: the narrator is overruled by one of his own (divine) characters. A similar game is surely being played in (12), where the narrator sup- poses that Idmon “already knew the whole outcome”. Idmon is a seer and therefore should know. But the narrator is as ambiguous about the omniscience of his seers as he is about his own, as is also clear from the treat- ment of Phineus in Arg. 2, and from the following words of Idmon: (18) “aÈtår §mo‹ yan°ein stugerª ÍpÚ da¤monow a‡s˙ thlÒyi pou p°prvtai §p' ÉAs¤dow ±pe¤roio.” Arg. 1.443-4 “I, however, am destined by the hateful allotment of a divinity to perish somewhere far away from here, on the Asian continent.” There can be no doubt that here pou is primarily local.22 Yet, because all other instances of pou in the poem, 27 in total, are interactional, the passage also invites a reading “I suppose I am destined”, in which the seer undercuts his own omniscience much as the narrator does in (9-17).

4. Mãn, mÆn, m°n The distribution of this particle is hard to map because the Ionic dialect does not formally distinguish between what are elsewhere ‘preparatory’ m°n and interactional mãn/mÆn (Aeolic/Attic), but uses the form m°n for both purposes. The distribution of the forms mãn and mÆn in the Homeric manuscripts suggests that epic poets used Aeolic mãn before vowels when a long syllable was required, otherwise Ionic m°n, which in transmission

21. On this passage see also Campbell (1994: 205-9); Hunter (1989: 121-3). 22. Compare esp. Arg. 3.1060-1 tÚ d¢ k«aw §w ÑEllãda … | o‡seai §j A‡hw, thloË poyi. 46 MARTIJN CUYPERS was often replaced by Attic mÆn where the metre allowed it, i.e. before a consonant;23 in such cases the tradition not rarely offers both mÆn and m°n.24 In the manuscript tradition of Apollonius, the form mãn (3×) appears only in phrases in which it also occurs in Homer (especially after oÈ/mÆ); mÆn (12×) occurs mostly before a vowel but by no means exclu- sively (cf. 1.677, 2.248, 3.125, 641); and m°n seems to appear in the sense of mãn/mÆn only in phrases where it is so used in the Homeric epics (such as ka‹ m°n, oÈ[d¢] m°n, ∑ m°n). In all three epics the instances of interactional m°n surely outnumber those of mÆn/mãn. I will discuss some passages with m°n below,25 but have made no attempt to analyze all 2243 instances of this form in the three poems (many of which are hard to clas- sify). My discussion will therefore be suggestive rather than exhaustive. A good starting point for understanding mãn/mÆn/m°n is Sicking’s observation that it “seems to be at home in expressing the contrary of what the person addressed might either suppose or wish” (1993: 54).26 The particle is not just assertive (like ∑, §5) but defensive (i.e. primarily addressee-oriented): it anticipates addressee disagreement and negates expectations (“this may surprise you/you may not think so, but I assure you it is true”). For this reason, it does not surprise that mãn/mÆn/m°n is very rare in Homeric narrator-text. Since the narrator is backed by the Muses, he has no need to be defensive, indeed he cannot be defensive if he is to uphold his absolute authority. There are three instances of the form mÆn/mãn in Homeric narrator-text; in two cases (2-3) the particle is combined with ∑ (cf. §5). I have added the sole instance of ∑ m°n in narrator-text, where m°n is clearly interactional (4). All examples come from the Iliad. (1) ka¤ =' o· per tÚ pãrow ge ne«n §n ég«ni m°neskon o· te kubern∞tai ka‹ ¶xon ofiÆÛa nh«n ka‹ tam¤ai parå nhus‹n ¶san s¤toio dot∞rew, ka‹ mØn ofl tÒte g' efiw égorØn ‡san, oÏnek' ÉAxilleÁw|§jefãnh. Il. 19.42-6 And even those who before had remained where the ships were assembled – they who were pilots and handled the steering oar, and who were stewards among the ships, dis- pensers of rations – even they came to the assembly then, because Achilles had appeared. (2) ≥xyeto gãr =a Trvs‹n damnam°nouw, Di‹ d¢ krater«w §nem°ssa. ∑ mån émfot°roisin ımÚn g°now ±d' ‡a pãtrh,

23. See Wakker, LfgrE mãn/mÆn; Wackernagel (1916: 17-22); Denniston (1954: 328-9). 24. This may account for the discrepancy between the numbers for mÆn/mãn found by Duhoux (1998) (Il. 28, Od. 11) and by Wakker l.c. and myself (Il. 29, Od. 6). 25. Compare furthermore ∑ m°n in §5.11, oÈ m°n yhn in §7. 26. See further Sicking (1993: 51-5); Wakker (1996; 1997); also Bakker (1993a: 13); Blomqvist (1969: 48-75); Denniston (1954: 328-58); Leumann (1949); Ruijgh (1971: 741- 2; 197-9, 202-4). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 47

éllå ZeÁw prÒterow gegÒnei ka‹ ple¤ona ædh. t« =a ka‹ émfad¤hn m¢n élej°menai él°eine. Il. 13.352-6 For he [Poseidon] was angered that they were beaten by the Trojans and blamed Zeus for it bitterly. Yes, these two were indeed of a single generation and a single father, but Zeus was the elder born and knew more. This was the reason why Poseidon shrank from openly defending [the Greeks]. (3) ·ppoi d' Afiak¤dao mãxhw épãneuyen §Òntew | kla›on (…). ∑ mån AÈtom°dvn Di≈reow êlkimow uflÚw pollå m¢n ír mãstigi yoª §pema¤eto ye¤nvn, pollå d¢ meilix¤oisi proshÊda, pollå d' éreiª: t∆ d' oÎt' íc §p‹ n∞aw §p‹ platÁn ÑEllÆsponton ±yel°thn fi°nai oÎt' §w pÒlemon met' ÉAxaioÊw. Il. 17.426-7, 429-33 Achilles’ horses, standing apart from the battle, wept [for their charioteer]. Oh yes, Automedon, the powerful son of Dioreus, did hit them over and over again with the stroke of the flying lash, talked to them, sometimes entreating them, sometimes threatening. Yet they were unwilling to return to the ships at the wide Hellespont or back into the battle in pursuit of the Achaeans. (4) sk°ptet' Ùist«n te =o›zon ka‹ doËpon ékÒntvn. ∑ m¢n dØ g¤gnvske mãxhw •teralk°a n¤khn: éllå ka‹ œw én°mimne. Il. 16.361-3 [Ajax] kept his eye on the whistle of arrows and the crash of spears. Yes, he did realize that the strength of fighting had shifted against him, but even so he stood his ground. In (1), mÆn underlines that the presence of lowly non-combatant personnel in the assembly runs contrary to expectations. Normally these people did not attend meetings, but this time they surprisingly did: so crucial was Achilles’ return. The ∑ mãn/m°n-clauses in (2-4) forestall objections which the narratees might voice at this particular point in the narrative. “Why did Poseidon behave in this way, seeing that he and Zeus were brothers?” (yes, they were brothers, but…). “Did Automedon not try to stir Achilles’ horses into motion?” (yes he did, but unsuccessfully). “Did Ajax not realize, then, that the Greeks were losing this battle?” (yes, he did, but even so…).27 Of the eight instances of mÆn/mãn in Apollonian narrator-text, four appear at the start of entries in the Catalogue of Argonauts, each time in combination with ka¤. Several other Catalogue entries open with the sequence oÈd¢ m°n (oÈd°), in which surely m°n = mÆn. In the order of the text: (5) oÈd¢ m¢n ÖIfiklow Fulãk˙ ¶ni dhrÚn ¶leipto. Arg. 1.45 (6) ka‹ mØn ÖAktvr uÂa Meno¤tion §j ÉOpÒentow | Œrsen. 69-70 (7) oÈd¢ m¢n oÈd¢ b¤hn kraterÒfronow ÑHrakl∞ow peuyÒmey' Afison¤dao lilaiom°nou éyer¤jai. 122-3

27. For (2-4) see also §5.3-5. 48 MARTIJN CUYPERS

(8) ka‹ mØn Afitvl‹w kraterÚn PoludeÊkea LÆdh Kãstorã t' »kupÒdvn Œrsen dedahm°non ·ppvn | Spãrthyen. 146-8 (9) ka‹ mØn ÉAmfidãmaw KhfeÊw t' ‡san ÉArkad¤hyen. 161 (10) ka‹ mÆn ofl mÆtrvw aÈtØn ıdÒn (…) Yestiãdhw ÖIfiklow §fvmãrthse kiÒnti. 199/201 (11) oÈd¢ m¢n oÈd' aÈto›o pãiw men°ainen ÖAkastow fify¤mou Pel¤ao dÒmoiw ¶ni patrÚw •∞ow | mimnãzein. 224-6 The fact that m°n/mÆn is hard to render in these passages (I have made no attempt) should not obscure its importance for the rhetorical argument which pervades the Catalogue. This argument reads as follows: Asterion came immediately (35); Polyphemus was past his prime, but left (lip≈n) Larisa all the same (40-4); nor did (Jason’s uncle) Iphiclus stay in Phylace for long (oÈd¢ m¢n … dhrÚn ¶leipto, 45 = [5] above); nor did Admetus stay in Pherae (oÈd¢ … m¤mnen, 49-50); nor did Eurytus and Echion stay in Alope (oÈd' … m¤mnon, 51-2); Coronus left (prolip≈n) wealthy Gyrton (57); ka‹ mØn Actor sent his son Menoetius from Opous (69-70 = [6]); Alcon sent his son Phalerus, despite the fact that he had no other sons to care for him in his old age, so that he might excel among the heroes (·na … metapr°poi ≤r≈essi, 95-100); Tiphys left (kãllipe) Thespiae (105); not even the mighty Heracles … scorned Jason’s needs (oÈd¢ m¢n oÈd°, 122-3 = [7]); Idmon was the last to arrive from Argos: he had a good excuse, because he knew he would not return (139-45), but came all the same to ensure his kleos among the people (mÆ ofl d∞mow §ukle¤hw égãsaito); ka‹ mØn Leda sent mighty Polydeuces and Castor from Sparta, becaused they begged her to let them go (146-50 = [8]); ka‹ mØn Amphidamas and Cepheus came from Arcadia (161 = [9]); their elder brother Lycurgus did not accompany them because he was old and had to care for their father, but he did send his son (163-7); Euphemus left (lip≈n) Taenarum (179); Erginus and Ancaeus left (nosfisye¤w) Miletus and Parthenia respectively (186-8); ka‹ mØn Iphiclus, son of Thestius, accompanied his nephew Meleager on this journey (199-201 = [10]); not even the mighty Pelias’ own son, Acastus, wished to stay in his father’s house (oÈd¢ m¢n oÈd' … men°ainen … mimnãzein, 224-6 = [11]). The silent assumption behind Apollonius’ presentation is surely that, given the hopelessness of the undertaking, these heroes should have wanted to stay at home – but surprise, they were all eager to join or send their children, so as not to miss out on kleos. In other words, we are to read “did not stay/say no as one might expect” and “left/came/sent rather than staying or forcing to stay, as one might expect”, and this is exactly what Apollonius signals by qualifying the opening sentences of some of the entries, both positive and negative, with mÆn/m°n. In the positive statements, he follows the precedent of a Homeric catalogue in character-text: Odysseus’ list of souls encountered in the underworld contains entries which start with ka‹ mØn Tãntalon/ S¤sufon efise›don (Od. 11.582, 593), to be read as “and (it may surprise you, but I assure you it is true) I also saw Tantalus/Sisyphus”. The negative statements can be ranged on a scale from ‘surprise implicit’ (e.g. oÈd¢ … m¤mnen, ll. 49-50; presentation INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 49 through negation) through ‘marked as surprising’ (oÈd¢ m°n) to ‘marked as very surprising’ (oÈd¢ m¢n oÈd°). This last grade is reserved for Acastus and Heracles (7, 11), whose presence is indeed more remarkable than that of the others: one would expect that Pelias’ son did not want to take part in what his father had devised as a deadly undertaking, and that the great Heracles had better things to do than joining lesser heroes on a crazy expedition.28 In the remaining four instances of mÆn/mãn in Apollonian narrator-text, the particle’s value can likewise be paraphrased as “contrary to what you, my narratees might expect”: (12) ka‹ mØn toÊsge parçsson §p‹ prot°roisin Ùl°ssaw, ktl. Arg. 3.125 However, very soon [Ganymedes] lost these [knuckle-bones] as well (…). (13) p∞le d¢ xe›raw peirãzvn e‡y' …w pr‹n §utrÒxaloi for°ontai mhd' êmudiw kamãtƒ te ka‹ efires¤˙ barÊyoien. oÈ mån aÔt' ÖAmukow peirÆsato. Arg. 2.45-8 [Polydeuces] swung his arms to test if they moved supply as before and had not grown heavy from exhaustion and rowing. Amycus, however, did not test himself. (14) Õw tÒte m¢n da›t' émf‹ panÆmeroi •ciÒvnto: ∑r¤ ge mØn §p‹ n∞a katÆisan §gkon°ontew. Arg. 2.811-2 In this way they entertained each other all day long as they feasted. Yet it was at the crack of dawn that they hastened to return to the ship. (15) (ka‹ dØ tå m¢n ˜ssa yuhlØn | koÊrh porsan°ousa titÊsketo) ëzomai aÈd∞sai: tÒ ge mØn ßdow §j°ti ke¤nou, ˜rra yeò ¥rvew §p‹ =hgm›sin ¶deiman, éndrãsin ÙcigÒnoisi m°nei ka‹ thlÒs' fid°syai. Arg. 4.250-2 (Now, all that the maiden prepared for offering the sacrifice…) I forbear from telling. From that day, however, the shrine which the heroes built to the goddess on the shore stands still visible to later generations. In (12) the narrator evokes and rejects the expectation that Ganymedes would have hung on to his last knuckle-bones – but no, he lost these too. Since Polydeuces did a warm-up (13), one might expect that Amycus did the same – but he did not. Since the Argonauts had a good time the day before (14), one might expect that they wanted to stay in Mariandynia longer – but no, they left in a hurry at daybreak. Since Medea’s sacrifice to Hecate at the Halys will be passed over in silence (15), we should not expect to receive evidence for this event – but we will.

28. Compare also Arg. 1.1063-4 oÈd¢ m¢n oÈd' êloxow Kle¤th fyim°noio l°leipto | o pÒsiow metÒpisye (if you expected that Cleite survived her husband: well she did not) and 4.672-4 y∞rew d', oÈ yÆressin §oikÒtew »mhstªsin | oÈd¢ m¢n oÈd' êndressin ımÚn d°maw, êllo d' ép' êllvn | summig°ew mel°vn (since these beasts did not resemble wild beast, you perhaps expect that they looked like men; but they did not look like men either); also 4.1529-30 and, with simple oÈ m°n, 3.1133, 4.537, 1489. 50 MARTIJN CUYPERS

5. âH Duhoux’s Homeric data for ∑ include 90 instances (35× Il., 55× Od.) of disjunctive ∑ = ≥, “or”, which accounts for higher totals across the board, and especially in narrator-text (1998: 18, 21-2). I have limited the count to the interactional uses that are usually labelled ‘affirmative’ and ‘interrogative’ (and added the disjunctive instances to the table entry for ≥/±°/∑e). I have excluded ∑ toi/≥toi (discussed separately in §9) and t¤h/t¤ µ/∑ (restricted to character-text in all three epics). The interpretation of H is often an arbitrary matter, and we are here more at the mercy of our editors than with most other particles.29 Even so it is safe to say that interactional ∑ is very unusual in Homeric narrator-text; I found only eight instances.30 Ruijgh is surely right in assuming that “at some time before Homer ∑ and oÈ served as counterparts, the one underlining the affirmative, the other the negative character of the utterance” (“yes” versus “no”).31 This scenario explains why ∑ appears in many Homeric phrases that are also common with oÈ, including many combinations with other particles, such as ∑ gãr and ≥toi (see §9), but also ∑ mÆn (m°n, mãn), ∑ dÆ, and ∑ pou. The last three phrases suggest that ∑ is strongly speaker-oriented. It expresses a high degree of commitment on the part of the speaker, but is neutral with respect to the reaction expected or desired from the addressee: ∑ becomes “you may not think so, but I tell you” when colored by mÆn; “I tell you, and in fact you know as well as I do” when colored by dÆ; and “you may or may not agree, but I tell you” when colored by pou. A felicitous label for ∑ is ‘subjectivity marker’. It expresses a personal commitment of the speaker to the validity of the utterance. This contribution that can be made explicit with paraphrases such as “I assure you”, “in my opin- ion”, and “if you ask me”.32 For example: (1) “so‹ d° tiw §n stÆyessin ékÆlhtow nÒow §st¤n. ∑ sÊ g' ÉOdusseÊw §ssi polÊtropow.” Od. 10.329-30 (Circe to Odysseus:) “There is a mind in you no magic will work on. Surely you are the ingenious Odysseus.” (2) “k∞ruj, t¤pte d° se prÒesan mnhst∞rew égauo¤; ∑ eﬁp°menai dmƒªsin ÉOduss∞ow ye¤oio

29. A case in point are the passages where editors of Homer print ∑ … ≥ (included in my selection) but where ≥ … ∑ (excluded) would be equally possible. 30. Though not as unusual as claimed by Denniston, who only cites Od. 22.31 (1954: 279). Griffin (1986: 45-6; hence de Jong 1987: 275 n.114) does not distinguish between simple ∑ (which is very rare in narrator-text) and ∑ toi = ≥toi (which is not: §9). 31. Ruijgh (1971: 194), as translated by Sicking (1993: 55). See the remarks on oÈ in §11.5. Just as oÈ, ∑ can be viewed as a challengeability marker (Kroon 1995: 117). 32. See also Sicking (1993: 55-7); Ruijgh (1971: 191-5); Wakker (1997: 218-23); Denniston (1954: 279-88). Further analysis of ∑ might benefit from a comparison with the Latin ‘actuality marker’ vero; see Kroon (1995: 281-332). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 51

¶rgvn paÊsasyai, sf¤si d' aÈto›w da›ta p°nesyai;” Od. 4.681-3 (Penelope to Medon:) “Herald, on what errand have the proud suitors sent you? Is it, as I think it is, to tell the maids of godlike Odysseus to stop their work and prepare the suitors a dinner?” This interpretation of ∑ not only establishes common ground for the two uses of the particle distinguished by Denniston, i.e. ‘affirmative’ (example 1) and ‘interrogative’ (2), but it also explains why ∑ is almost absent from Homeric narrator-text. Words that imply personal judgment on the part of the narrator undermine the fiction that the narrator speaks on the authority of the Muses. Of the eight instances of ∑ in narrator-text that do occur, five appear in Iliad 16-17, the events around Patroclus, where scholars have also found the narrative generally more ‘emotional’ than elsewhere.33 Three instances have already been discussed in §4 (2-4), where we saw ∑ combined with mãn/m°n to forestall objections from the narratees: (3) ∑ mån émfot°roisin ımÚn g°now ±d' ‡a pãtrh, ktl. Il. 13.354 (4) ∑ mån AÈtom°dvn Di≈reow êlkimow uflÚw pollå m¢n ír mãstigi yoª §pema¤eto ye¤nvn, ktl. Il. 17.429-30 (5) ∑ m¢n dØ g¤gnvske mãxhw •teralk°a n¤khn: ktl. Il. 16.362 The remaining five instances occur in motivating digressive clauses that start from ∑ gãr, §pe‹ ∑, and ∑ te, and that contain narratorial comments. Three motivate the evaluative and proleptic exclamation nÆpiow/oi:34 (6) Õw fãto lissÒmenow m°ga nÆpiow: ∑ går ¶mellen oÂ aÈt“ yãnatÒn te kakÚn ka‹ k∞ra lit°syai. Il. 16.46-7 So he spoke supplicating, the great fool – fool, yes, for this was his own evil death and destruction he was entreating. (7) Tr«aw ka‹ Luk¤ouw metek¤aye, ka‹ m°g' éãsyh nÆpiow: efi d¢ ¶pow PhlhÛãdao fÊlajen, ∑ t' ín Íp°kfuge k∞ra kakØn m°lanow yanãtoio. éll' afie¤ te DiÚw kre¤ssvn nÒow ±° per éndr«n. Il. 16.685-8 [Patroclus] went after Trojans and Lycians and was greatly deceived, the fool: had he only kept the command of Peleus’ son, yes then he might have gotten away from the evil spirit of black death. But always Zeus’ mind is stronger than the minds of men. (8) mãla d° sfisin ¶lpeto yumÚw nekrÚn Íp' A‡antow §rÊein Telamvniãdao nÆpioi: ∑ te pol°ssin §p' aÈt“ yumÚn éphÊra. Il. 17.234-6 In their spirits they were much expecting to drag the body away from under Ajax son of Telamon, the fools – fools, yes, because he robbed many of their spirit over it.

33. See e.g. de Jong (1987: 144); Janko on Il. 16.20. 34. On these and similar evaluative comments see de Jong (1987: 136-44). 52 MARTIJN CUYPERS

A fourth motivates a remarkable present-tense generalization: (9) (…) PolÊdamna (…) Afigupt¤h, tª ple›sta f°rei ze¤dvrow êroura fãrmaka, pollå m¢n §sylå memigm°na, pollå d¢ lugrã, fihtrÚw d¢ ßkastow §pistãmenow per‹ pãntvn ényr≈pvn: ∑ går PaiÆonÒw efisi gen°ylhw. Od. 4.228-32 (…) Polydamna of Egypt, where the fertile earth produces the greatest number of medicines, many good in mixture, many malignant, and every man is a doctor there and more knowledgeable than all other men; for indeed they are of the race of Paieon. The fifth explains the thinking behind a reported (anonymous) speech: (10) ‡sken ßkastow énÆr, §pe‹ ∑ fãsan oÈk §y°lonta êndra katakte›nai: tÚ d¢ nÆpioi oÈk §nÒhsan, …w dÆ sfin ka‹ pçsin Ùl°yrou pe¤rat' §f∞pto. Od. 22.31-3 So each man [of the suitors] spoke – for indeed they thought he had not intended to kill the man. This they had not realized, the fools, how over all of them the terms of death were now hanging. This can be taken as a case of embedded focalization (the suitors thought: “∑ oÈk §y°lvn êndra kat°ktanen”35), and the presence of nÆpioi in the next line will not be coincidental. Even so, the use of ∑ here comes surprisingly close to Apollonius’ use of pou in statements about the motivation, feelings or thoughts of his characters, discussed in §3 (9-11). In the narrator-text of the Argonautica, ∑ is more frequent and its uses are more variegated. Of the fifteen instances I found, one reproduces in indirect speech the phrase ∑ m°n (= mÆn) at the start of an oath (11); two others are directed at an addressee other than the narratees (12, 13):36 (11) §p≈mosan ∑ m¢n érÆjein éllÆloiw efisai¢n ımofrosÊn˙si nÒoio. Arg. 2.715-6 They swore that they would forever help each other in concord of mind. (12) aÈtØ nËn kãmatÒn ge yeå ka‹ dÆnea koÊrhw Kolx¤dow ¶nnepe MoËsa, DiÚw t°kow: ∑ går ¶moige émfas¤˙ nÒow ¶ndon •l¤ssetai. Arg. 4.1-3 Now you yourself, goddess, must tell of the suffering and thoughts of the Colchian girl, you Muse, child of Zeus; yes, you must tell, for my mind whirls in silent helplessness. (13) ZeË pãter, ∑ m°ga dÆ moi §n‹ fres‹ yãmbow êhtai Arg. 4.1673 Father Zeus, great, I tell you, is the amazement that blows through my mind! Of the twelve instances that are directed at the narratees, two offer a vari- ant of the Homeric exclamation nÆpiow/oi, ∑ te/gãr (6-8) in the form of the sequence sx°tliow/oi, ∑ t° ofl/sfin:

35. So de Jong (1987: 275 n.114). 36. For m°n = mÆn (see §5) in this context compare also Arg. 2.252-3 (¶st' ín ÙmÒss˙w | mØ m°n, ktl.), 293 (»Ämosen, mØ m°n, ktl.). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 53

(14) ka¤ nÊ ken íc Ùp¤sv Mus«n §p‹ ga›an ·konto (…), efi mØ Yrhik¤oio dÊv uÂew Bor°ao Afiak¤dhn xalepo›sin §rhtÊeskon ¶pessin, sx°tlioi: ∑ t° sfin stugerØ t¤siw ¶plet' Ùp¤ssv xers‹n Íf' ÑHrakl∞ow, ˜ min d¤zesyai ¶rukon. Arg. 1.1298/1300-3 And now [the Argonauts] would have gone back to the land of the Mysians (…), had not the two sons of Thracian Boreas restrained the son of Aeacus with harsh words, the poor wretches – yes, poor wretches, for Heracles later exacted a terrible and violent revenge because they had prevented a search being made for him. (15) n∞xe d¢ porfur°oio di' o‡dmatow, ˆfr' §piba¤h, sx°tliow: ∑ t° ofl a‰ca katautÒyi nÒston éphÊrvn, éllã min ofikte¤rasa yeå ÖErukow med°ousa [§sãvsen.] Arg. 4.915-7 [Bootes] swam through the whirling waves to reach the shore, the poor wretch – yes, poor wretch, because [the Sirens] would immediately have robbed him of his return there and then, had not the goddess who guards Eryx [… saved him.] (16) ı d¢ fo¤nion ßlkow êfassen yarsal°vw, ßnek' oÎ min Íp°rbion êlgow ¶teiren, sx°tliow: ∑ t° ofl ≥dh ÍpÚ xro˛ dÊeto k«ma. Arg. 4.1522-4 [Canthus] felt around at the bloody snake-bite with an air of bravado, for he was not harassed by excessive pain, the poor wretch – yes, poor wretch, because already unconsciousness was creeping under his skin. Also within the Homeric range of uses are two explanatory clauses, with ∑ gãr and §pe‹ ∑ (cf. 6, 9, 10, 12), which motivate a preceding statement that the narratees might find surprising: (17) t“ d' §p‹ dØ ye¤oio k¤en Danao›o gen°ylh, NaÊpliow: ∑ går ¶hn KlutonÆou Naubol¤dao, NaÊbolow aÔ L°rnou, L°rnon ge m¢n ‡dmen §Ònta Pro¤tou Naupliãdao, Poseidãvni d¢ koÊrh pr¤n pot' ÉAmum≈nh Dana˛w t°ken eÈnhye›sa NaÊplion, ˘w per‹ pãntaw §ka¤nuto nautil¤˙sin. Arg. 1.133-8 After him came the descendant of divine Danaus, Nauplius – yes, a descendant of Danaus, because he was the son of Clytoneus, son of Naubolus; and Naubolus in turn was the son of Lernus; and Lernus, we know, was the son of Proetus son of Nauplius; and once upon a time Amymone, the maiden daughter of Danaus, had lain with Posei- don and given birth to Nauplius who surpassed all men in the art of sailing. (18) a‰ca d¢ mÊyƒ xrei∆ nautil¤hn te diakridÚn §jer°einen, ±d' ıpÒyen metå ga›an •Øn ka‹ d≈mat' fiÒntew aÎtvw fldrÊyhsan §f°stioi: ∑ går Ùne¤rvn mn∞stiw éeikel¤h dËnen fr°naw ırma¤nousan. Arg. 4.720-4 And at once [Circe] asked [Jason and Medea] what the purpose was of their journey, and from where they had come to her land and house to seat themselves as suppliants at her hearth – yes, for the hideous memory of her dream invaded her mind as she wondered. (19) éllå ka‹ érymÚn ¶yento metå sf¤si to›o ßkhti, aÈtÚn d' Àste yeÚn PoludeÊkea dejiÒvnto, 54 MARTIJN CUYPERS

pãntoyen égrÒmenoi: §pe‹ ∑ mãla to¤ g' §p‹ dhrÒn éntib¤hn B°brujin Íperfiãloiw pol°mizon. Arg. 2.755-8 Indeed for this very reason [i.e. because the Argonauts’ fame as the killers of Amycus had preceded them] the Mariandyni made alliance with them and hailed Polydeuces as a god, gathering from all directions. For it was very long indeed that they had waged war again the arrogant Bebrycians. Any reader versed in mythology would take the qualification “Nauplius the Danaid” in (17) as “Nauplius the son of Danaus’ daughter Amy- mone”, but he would also realize immediately that this identification does not fit the Argonautica’s mythochronology. Therefore Apollonius hastily explains that he did not mean the Nauplius everyone knows, but a far descendant of the same name – a genealogical scam in which the narratees are made accomplices (“we know”) to the invention of four otherwise un- attested generations of Danaids.37 In (18), the ∑ gãr-clause motivates the potentially surprising fact that Circe did not follow her usual protocol of ‘hospitality’, which prescribes that after she has sat her guests on chairs, she turns them into swine.37a The §pe‹ ∑-clause of (19) likewise motivates facts that might surprise: the behavior of the Mariandyni, and especially their attribution of divine honors to Polydeuces, could appear somewhat overdone. To understand their reaction we need to know that they had been at war with Amycus for a very long time. In this last example, as in (13), ∑ comes close to modifying the following adverb (mãla), a use that is absent from the narrator-text of the Homeric epics but very common in the character-text.38 Compare for example: (20) “Ã pÒpoi, ∑ m°ga p°nyow ÉAxai¤da ga›an ﬂkãnei.” Il. 1.254 “What?! Great sorrow indeed has come on the land of Achaea!” (21) “EÈrÊlox', ∑ mãla dÆ me biãzete moËnon §Ònta.” Od. 12.297 “Eurylochus, I would say you are pretty much forcing me here, seeing that I am only one man.” Apollonius introduces this use into narrator-text with the ‘formula’ ∑ yamå dÆ (cf. also 13 and the repeated phrase in 14-6): (22) ∑ yamå dØ pãptainon §p‹ platÁn ˆmmasi pÒnton. Arg. 1.631 Often indeed did [the Lemnian women] scan the wide sea with their eyes. (23) ∑ yamå dØ sthy°vn §ãgh k°ar. Arg. 3.954 Often indeed did [Medea’s] heart snap in her breast. (24) ∑ yamå dØ pol°vn melihd°a nÒston ßlonto. Arg. 4.901 Often indeed and of many had [the Sirens] taken away their sweet return.

37. For this passage see also §6.13. 37a. I owe this interpretation to Jackie Murray. 38. See Griffin (1986: 45-6). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 55

(25) ka‹ gãr t' énaxãzetai ±pe¤roio | ∑ yamå dØ tÒde xeËma. Arg. 4.1241-2 For often indeed does this stream retreat from the land.39 In these passages, ∑ conveys an invitation to the narratees to imagine an event that can be observed in the present as a repeated event: the narratees are asked to believe the narrator on his word when he claims that this also happened before the narrated moment. This explanation of the particle, which one might call ‘special pleading ∑’, also fits the two remaining instances in Argonautic narrator-text: (26) aÎtvw d' ÖArhtow menedÆion EÈrÊtou uÂa ÖIfiton ézal°˙ korÊn˙ stuf°lijen §lãssaw, oÎpv khr‹ kakª peprvm°non: ∑ tãx' ¶mellen aÈtÚw d˙≈sesyai ÍpÚ j¤feÛ Klut¤oio. Arg. 2.114-7 So too Aretus wielded his solid club against Iphitus, the steadfast son of Eurytus, who was not yet doomed to a wretched end. In fact, Aretus himself was very soon to fall to the sword of Clytius. (27) ∑ t° ken êmfv | =h¤teron kamãtoio t°low pãntessin ¶yento. Arg. 1.103-4 These two [i.e. Theseus and Peirithous] would surely have made the accomplishment of the task easier for all. Here the narrator takes out some extra credit for events that will happen in the future but will not be narrated when they occur (prolepsis, 26; cf. 6-8, 14-6) or that do not occur at all but are entirely hypothetical (27; cf. 15).

6. DÆ (and d∞yen) DÆ is best described as a (bidirectional) ‘evidential’ or ‘cooperative’ particle. It marks that, according to the speaker, an utterance arises as self-evident from knowledge (contextual or extra-textual) which both discourse par- ticipants have at their disposal. Simply put, a speaker indicates with dÆ that he is stating the obvious or asking an obvious question. The particle establishes interpersonal consensus (speaker and addressee are on common ground), reduces the possibility of challenges, and solicits empathy.40 DÆ is the only interactional particle that is common in Homeric narrator- text.41 Both in frequency and in distribution over discourse types, it comes close to the ‘interactionally colored’ connectives éllã and gãr (for which

39. Compare in character-text Arg. 4.59 (∑ yamå dÆ), 1.1137 (Œ p°pon, ∑ mãla dÆ), 4.1749 (Œ p°pon, ∑ m°ga dÆ), 3.891 (Œ f¤lai, ∑ m°ga dÆ). 40. See Sicking (1993: 51-3); Bakker (1993a: 13-5; 1997a: 75-9); van Ophuijsen (1993: 140-51); Wakker (1994: 351-7; 1997: 216-7); also Denniston (1954: 203-79); Leumann (1949). DÆ shows some resemblance to Latin enim: see Kroon (1995: 102, 171-209). 41. My findings for the Odyssey differ slightly from those of Duhoux (1998), who counts 491 instances in total, 103 in narrator-text and 388 in character-text. The data for Apol- lonius include §peidÆ, d≥peita, and dÆpote (all spelled as two words in editions of Homer). 56 MARTIJN CUYPERS see §11.5). In the Argonautica dÆ’s frequency in narrator-text is higher than in the Iliad and Odyssey. More remarkable, however, are the differences between Apollonius and Homer in actual usage, viz. the contexts in which the particle is used and the kind of utterances which are presented as ‘obvious’. With regard to the first point, it should be noted that about three quarters of the instances of dÆ in Homeric narrator-text occur in one single context, namely clauses introduced by ˜te, tÒte, and other temporal conjunctions and adverbs.42 Typical examples are: (1) aÈtår ÉOdusseÁw §w XrÊshn ·kanen êgvn ﬂerØn •katÒmbhn. o„ d' ˜te dØ lim°now polubeny°ow §ntÚw ·konto, ktl. Il. 1.430-2 (2) to›si d¢ terpom°noisi m°law §p‹ ßsperow ∑lye: dØ tÒte kakke¤ontew ¶ban o‰kÒnde ßkastow. Od. 1.423-4 Odysseus and his company went to Chryse, so obviously they at some moment entered the town’s harbor (1). Evening fell, so obviously all went home to sleep. In both examples the dÆ-clause presents a step in the narrative which cannot come as a surprise to the narratees given the information they already possess and their knowledge of the world of the poem and the behavior of its characters. These parameters also apply to the other instances of dÆ in Homeric narrator-text. Consider the following examples: (3) Õw ¶fat', ÉIdomeneÁw d' ·masen kall¤trixaw ·ppouw n∞aw ¶pi glafurãw: dØ går d°ow ¶mpese yum“. Il. 17.624-5 So [Meriones] spoke, and Idomeneus whipped the mane-floating horses back to the hollow ships; for, of course, fear had seized his heart.43 (4) ÜEktvr m¢n kefal∞fin §pe‹ lãben oÈx‹ mey¤ei: Pãtroklow d' •t°rvyen ¶xen podÒw: o„ d¢ dØ êlloi Tr«ew ka‹ Danao‹ sÊnagon kraterØn Ísm¤nhn. Il. 16.762-4 Hector, on one side, grasped [Cebriones’] head and did not let go; Patroclus on the other side held on to a leg; and meanwhile, of course, the other Trojans and Greeks were fighting each other fiercely. (5) §n d' ¶peson promãxois' ÉOduseÁw ka‹ fa¤dimow uﬂÒw (…) ka¤ nÊ ke dØ pãntaw ˆlesan, ktl. Od. 24.526/528 Odysseus and his glorious son fell upon the forefighters (…) and they would, of course, have killed them all [had not Athena intervened.]44

42. This context accounts for 119 instances (72%) in the Iliad (i) and 76 instances (80%) in the Odyssey (o); to be precise: (1) temporal conjunction: ˜te dÆ 66i 25o, ıppÒte dÆ 3o, §pe‹ dÆ 14i 13o; (2) temporal adverb: tÒte dÆ/dØ tÒt(e)/dÆ =a tÒt(e) 31i 28o, Ùc¢ d¢ dÆ 7i 4o, dØ ¶peita Od. 8.378, t∞mow dÆ Od. 13.95, ¶nya + dÆ Il. 11.171, Od. 5.436. See also Ruijgh (1971: 432-6; 1981: 277-8). 43. For dÆ + gãr in narrator-text see also Il. 12.332, 13.517, 15.488, 601, 16.810, 17.546, 18.153, 24.351; Od. 5.276, 13.30, 18.154. 44. For dÆ in so-called ‘if not-situations’ (de Jong 1987: 68-81) see also Il. 6.52, 7.273, 15.601, 17.530, 23.490, 24.713; Od. 17.412, 21.128; Arg. 2.284. INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 57

(6) te›re går aÈtÚn ßlkow, ˘ dÆ min TeËkrow §pessÊmenon bãlen ﬁ“. Il. 16.510-1 For he was in pain from the wound which, as you will remember, Teucer had inflicted with an arrow as he attacked. (7) ¶spete nËn moi MoËsai ÉOlÊmpia d≈mat' ¶xousai, ˜ppvw dØ pr«ton pËr ¶mpese nhus‹n ÉAxai«n. Il. 16.113-4 Tell me now, Muses, who live on Olympus, how, then, fire first fell upon the ships of the Greeks. In the last example, the communicative situation is different: these words are explicitly addressed to the Muses rather than implicitly to the narratees. Yet they can be understood on both levels. The Muses are reminded of information which they already possess (as the narratees are in 6); but the narratees, the ultimate addressees, should also have no trouble with this sentence. Given the situation, it is obvious that the Trojans will set fire to the Greek ships eventually. At this level, then, the sentence is to be read as “how fire first fell upon the ships of the Greeks, as you, my narratees, expected would happen”.45 These Homeric uses of dÆ are also common in the Argonautica, be it that the combination with a temporal conjunction or adverb is less prominent46 to the benefit of combinations with gãr, ka¤47 or a relative. Apollonius also uses the un-Homeric form d∞yen in narrator-text to the same effect as ‘simple’ dÆ (1.998, 3.1119, 4.1291).48 But Apollonius’ most remarkable innovation is his extension to narrator-text of a use of dÆ that is virtually limited to character-text in Homer – compare the following examples in embedded narration: (8) “âVtÒn t' ént¤yeon thlekleitÒn t' ÉEfiãlthn, oÓw dØ mhk¤stouw yr°ce ze¤dvrow êroura.” Od. 11.308-9 (9) “Plagktåw dÆ toi tãw ge yeo‹ mãkarew kal°ousi.” Od. 12.61 (10) “o‡h dØ ke¤n˙ ge par°plv pontopÒrow nhËw ÉArg∆ pçsi m°lousa, par' AﬁÆtao pl°ousa.” Od. 12.69-70 (11) “ka‹ ént¤yeow GanumÆdhw, ˘w dØ kãllistow g°neto ynht«n ényr≈pvn.” Il. 20.233 Here dÆ may be translated as “as you know”. Supposedly, the Phaeacians already know that Otus and Ephialtes were the tallest men on earth (8);

45. Compare also Il. 14.508-9 ¶spete nËn moi MoËsai …|˜w tiw dØ pr«tow brotÒent' éndrãgri' ÉAxai«n | ≥rat(o). 46. Namely: ˜te dÆ 15×, ıppÒte dÆ 3.299, §peidÆ 2.714, dØ … §pe¤ 2.859; dØ tot(e)/dØ =a tÒt(e) 19× (never tÒte dÆ), d≥peita 6×, Ùc¢ d¢ dÆ 3.1025; together 44× (35%). 47. Namely: dØ gãr 18×, går dÆ 2.851, 2.1090, 4.450, går … dÆ 4.988, together 22× (17% vs. Il. 5%, Od. 3%); ka‹ dÆ 17× (in Homeric narrator-text only Od. 5.401, 21.377). 48. On d∞yen see Denniston (1954: 264-6). 58 MARTIJN CUYPERS

Odysseus already knows that these dangerous rocks are called “Planctae” and that only the Argo ever managed to sail through them (9-10); Achilles already knows that Ganymedes was the most beautiful of all mortal men (11). They know not because this specific speaker has told them, but because they have heard stories told by others, at a different time and place. Surely the ancient audiences of the Iliad and Odyssey had also heard many stories before, but this seems irrelevant. The communicative fiction of the Homeric epics apparently demands that the narrator should not use dÆ to present information which the narratees cannot infer from the story that is told here and now or from their general knowledge of the world.49 In other words, it demands that the story remain self-sufficient. The narrator of the Argonautica has no such qualms. See for example: (12) b∞ d¢ ka‹ AÈge¤hw, ˘n dØ fãtiw ÉHel¤oio | ¶mmenai. Arg. 1.172-3 Augeas came too, who (as you know) is said to be a son of Helius. (13) ¶sti d° tiw … | … Keraun¤˙ eﬁn èl‹ n∞sow, √ Ïpo dØ ke›syai dr°panon fãtiw, ktl. Arg. 4.982-4 There is this island in the Ceraunian sea, under which (as you know) they say lies the sickle (with which…). (14) t“ d' §p‹ dØ ye¤oio k¤en Danao›o gen°ylh, | NaÊpliow. Arg. 1.133-4 After him came, of course, the descendant of divine Danaus, Nauplius. (15) ka‹ dÆ toi k°xutai toËd' én°row §n xyon‹ ke¤n˙ | tÊmbow. Arg. 2.841-2 And (as you know) the tomb of this man rises in that land. (16) ka‹ dØ Paryen¤oio =oåw …| … parem°treon. Arg. 2.936-7 Then, of course, they passed the stream of the Parthenius. In (12) and (13), fãtiw makes explicit what is already implied by dÆ: the narratees are supposed to already know this information from other sources. In (14), a passage already discussed in §5 (19), dÆ is ironic. It tricks the narratees into believing they should have expected Nauplius’ arrival from their knowledge of other versions of the story; but as we have seen, Nau- plius’ inclusion among the Argonauts is by no means a matter of course. In (15) the narrator underscores his reference to of shared external knowledge with an explicit appeal to the narratees by means of toi (see §8), a particle which, in the Argonautica, also appears with dÆ in two more ‘conventional’ passages.50 Example (16) is more subtle than the others,

49. This last point notably applies to the instances of dÆ found in similes, e.g. Il. 11.478, 559; cf. also Arg. 3.757, 958, 1243. To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the rule are Il. 10.316 and Od. 20.289, where dÆ is combined with a no less surprising toi: see §8. 50. Compare Arg. 1.725-7 t∞w m¢n =h¤terÒn ken §w ±°lion éniÒnta | ˆsse bãloiw µ ke›no metabl°ceiaw ¶reuyow: | dØ gãr toi m°ssh m¢n §reuyÆessa t°tukto (ktl.), 3.957-9 ÍcÒs' énayr–skvn ë te Se¤riow ÉVkeano›o, | ˘w dÆ toi kalÚw m¢n ér¤zhlÒw t' §sid°syai | ént°llei, mÆloisi d' §n êspeton ∏ken ÙizÊn; cf. also Il. 10.316 and Od. 20.289, discussed in §8. INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 59 but it has the same implications. Only to narratees who are already familiar with the geography of the Black Sea coast can it be obvious that the next landmark on the Argonauts’ journey should be the Parthenius river.51 In these passages, and a number of others,52 dÆ makes an important contribution to what I have elsewhere called “the rhetoric of shared tradition”,53 an almost conspiratory narrative fiction in which the narratees are reminded of what they already know, because they know the same stories as the narrator – according to the fiction upheld in the Argonau- tica: from hearing poems. Of course, to the ancient readers of the author Apollonius “they say” meant “they write”, and one may also wonder how many readers ever entered this poem with all the knowledge that it presents as ‘obvious’. This, however, is a guestion of an entirely different order. The narrator Apollonius addresses his narratees as peers.

7. Yhn Denniston’s claim that yhn “is equivalent in sense to dÆ, but perhaps rather weaker in force” (1954: 288) may have some validity for Doric, but it is untenable for epic-Ionic.54 This is already suggested by the fact that yhn is, unlike dÆ, never found in narrator-text, and it becomes entirely clear if one tries to apply the value of dÆ (as argued above) to passages such as the following (Nestor speaking): (1) “oÎ yhn ÜEktori pãnta noÆmata mht¤eta ZeÁw §ktel°ei, ˜sa poÊ nun §°lpetai.” Il. 10.104-5 At the moment of speaking, this is by no means a matter of course: it is wishful thinking. Nestor may personally believe that “Zeus will not bring all Hector’s plans to fulfilment”, but besides the fact that the situation hardly supports Nestor’s claim, neither he nor Agamemnon are in a position

51. Compare also Arg. 2.1030-1 (“then, of course [ka‹ dÆ] they set their course in the lee of Ares’ island”), 1246-7 (“then, of course [ka‹ dÆ], as they advanced, the furthest recess of the Black Sea came into view; and, of course [ka‹ dÆ] the peaks of the Caucasus rose up”). 52. Compare Arg. 2.178 (“Phineus, who, as you know, of all men had endured the most grievous sufferings because of his prophetic power”), 604 (the Symplegades stopped clash- ing together “as was indeed fated”), 1240 (“the mountains of the Pelasgians, where Macris, as you know, bore monstrous Chiron”), 3.200 (“this, as you know, is called the Plain of Circe”; cf. Campbell 1994: 180), 4.325 (“the peak of Mt. Angouros, where, as you know, the Ister splits before it reaches the sea”), 988 (“for, as you know, Deo once lived in that land”), 1131 (“the cave where, as you know, Macris once lived”), 1134 (“Macris, as you know, was the first to take Dionysus to her breast”), 53. Cuypers (2004: 55-7), where see for a fuller discussion of Arg. 2.841-55 (and of dÆ in 851 t¤w går dØ yãnen êllow;). 54. To be fair, Denniston’s assessment has ancient support (e.g. sch. D Il. 8.448). How- ever, yhn is also glossed with pou (e.g. Ap.S. 88.2, Hesych. y505), which is in many ways dÆ’s opposite (§3), and this second explanation seems closer to the truth, at least for epic. 60 MARTIJN CUYPERS to verify it, because they do not know Zeus’ plans and cannot look into the future. These parameters are typical for the Homeric use of yhn. The particle appears in clauses with future or present tense verb forms in which a speaker (1) states a personal belief with respect to future events while (2) admitting that this belief is unsubstantiated.55 This last aspect explains why yhn is not found in Homeric narrator-text: it is (like pou) incompatible with epic omniscience. See for example: (2) “oÎ yÆn min pãlin aÔtiw énÆsei yumÚw égÆnvr neike¤ein basil∞aw.” Il. 2.276-7 (anonymous Greek:) “I trust that [Thersites’] proud heart will never again incite him to quarrel with kings.” (3) “µn går dÆ me sa«si yeo‹ ka‹ o‡kad' ·kvmai, PhleÊw yÆn moi ¶peita guna›kã ge mãssetai aÈtÒw.” Il. 9.393-4 (Achilles to Embassy:) “For if the gods keep me safe and I come home, I trust that Peleus himself will then find me a wife.” (4) “oÈ m°n yhn ke¤nhw ge xere¤vn eÎxomai e‰nai.” Od. 5.211 (Calypso to Odysseus:) “I believe I can confidently say that I am not inferior to her.” In (2-4), as in (1), the essential point is that the speaker’s claim is, at present, a matter of faith and trust only.56 The two Apollonian examples in character-text follow suit: (5) “Œ p°pon, ∑ mãla dÆ me kak“ §kudãssao mÊyƒ, fåw §n‹ tois¤d' ëpasin §nh°ow éndrÚw éle¤thn ¶mmenai. éll' oÈ yÆn toi édeuk°a m∞nin é°jv, pr¤n per énihye¤w.” Arg. 1.1337-40 (Jason to Telamon:) “My friend, yes, you know as well as I do that those were very grieving words, when, in front of all these men, you said that I had wronged an excel- lent hero. But trust me, I shall not nurse a bitter wrath, though I felt pain then.” (6) “tå m¢n oÈ y°miw ékrãanta §n ga¤˙ pes°ein, mãla går m°gan ≥litew ˜rkon, nhle°w: éll' oÎ yÆn moi §pill¤zontew Ùp¤ssv dØn ßssesy' eÎkhloi ßkht¤ ge sunyesiãvn.” Arg. 4.387-90

55. Similarly R. Führer, LfgrE yhn (“Ausdruck fester subjektiver Überzeugtheit ohne entsprechende objektive Information beziehungsweise Durchsetzungsmöglichkeit”). 56. Compare also Il. 8.447 (“I trust you have not [oÈ m°n yhn] gotten tired from killing the Trojans”), 11.365 = 20.452 (“trust me [∑ yhn], I will kill you if I meet you again”), 17.29 (“so, I trust [Àw yhn], I shall also take your life if you stand against me”), 13.620 (“so, I trust [yhn], you will leave the ships of the Danaans”), 813 (“I trust [∑ yÆn pou] you expect in your heart to destroy our ships”), 15.288 (“I trust [∑ yhn] everyone very much expected in his heart that Hector had died”), 14.480 (“I believe we Trojans shall not [oÎ yhn] be the only ones to be given misery and sorrow”), 16.852 (“I believe you yourself will not [oÎ yhn] live long either”), 21.568 (“for I believe [gãr yhn] Achilles’ skin is vulnerable too”); Od. 3.352 (“of course I trust the dear son of Odysseus shall not [oÎ yhn dÆ] have to go to sleep on the deck of a ship”: irony), 16.91 (“since I believe [§pe¤ yhn] it is proper to give you an answer as well”). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 61

(Medea to Jason:) “The gods will not allow this curse to fall to the ground unaccom- plished, for you have transgressed a very mighty oath, you pitiless creature. But trust me, not much longer shall you and your comrades sit at ease for all your agreements.” These passages suggest that Apollonius had an accurate understanding of the particle’s value in Homer. It therefore comes as a surprise to find the following instance of yhn in narrator-text: (7) ¶nyen d¢ Syen°lou tãfon ¶drakon ÉAktor¤dao, ˜w =ã t' ÉAmazon¤dvn poluyars°ow §k pol°moio íc éni∆n (dØ går sunanÆluyen ÑHrakl∞i) blÆmenow ﬁ“ ke›yen, §p' égxiãlou yãnen ékt∞w. oÈ m°n yhn prot°rv ¶t' §m°treon: ∏ke går aÈtÆ FersefÒnh cuxØn poludãkruon ÉAktor¤dao. Arg. 2.911-6 Next they saw the tomb of Sthenelus, son of Actor, who died there on the sea-shore from an arrow wound; he was returning from the bold expedition against the Amazons on which he had accompanied Heracles. The Argonauts proceeded no further, for Persephone herself sent up the tearful shade of Actor’s son. The context is very much unlike the others. The yhn-clause contains a statement about the past and introduces a part of the story that is later supported with an aition (“for this reason the name of this place is Lyre”, 930). Although the narrator of the Argonautica sometimes distances himself from a detail of his story with pou (as we have seen in §3.13-7), introducing an entire episode as unverifyable and then backing it up with evidence is of an entirely different order. I strongly suspect that in this passage oÈ m°n yhn is a Homerizing corruption (cf. [4], Il. 8.448 in n.56) for oÈ m¢n dÆn,57 and have therefore omitted it from the table.

8. Toi Denniston’s analysis of this addressee-oriented particle is to the point: “that toi is to be identified with the (ethical) dative of sÊ is etymologically plausible and entirely consonant with the usage of the particle (…). [Toi] implies, strictly speaking, an audience, and (owing to the intimacy of appeal which it suggests) an audience of one” (1954: 537).58 In fact, we can only be sure that we are dealing with the particular use of toi when it is addressed to more than one person.59

57. Cf. Arg. 3.729, 1268 (oÈ) dhrÚn ¶ti, Il. 5.119-20, 284-5 oÈd° … dhrÚn ¶t', and (oÈ[d']/mhd' +) ¶ti + dÆn/dhrÒn at Arg. 1.595, 4.1680 and 16× in Homer. 58. See further Sicking (1993: 64); Wakker (1994: 360-3); Denniston (1954: 537-55). Note that toi occurs more often in the narrator-text of the Theogony than Denniston claims (98, 126, 448, 873, 986, 1015): clearly the narrative voice of didactic poetry differs from that of epic. 59. Unlike Duhoux (1998: 16-7), I have made no attempt to separate out particular and pronominal instances. This distinction is often arbitrary and, for the purpose of this paper, only relevant for the instances in narrator-text. 62 MARTIJN CUYPERS

The fact that toi implies an appeal to an addressee explains why it is virtually restricted to character-text in Homer. Of the eight instances of toi in narrator-text, six occur in apostrophes of characters: Menelaus in Il. 4.129, 146, 7.104, and Patroclus in Il. 16.787, 788, 812; in all cases a pronominal interpretation is possible. This leaves only two passages where toi must refer to the narratees: (1) ∑n d° tiw §n Tr≈essi DÒlvn EÈmÆdeow uflÚw kÆrukow ye¤oio polÊxrusow polÊxalkow, ˘w dÆ toi e‰dow m¢n ¶hn kakÒw, éllå pod≈khw. Il. 10.314-6 (2) ∑n d° tiw §n mnhst∞rsin énØr éyem¤stia efid≈w, KtÆsippow d' ˆnom' ¶ske, Sãm˙ d' §n‹ ofik¤a na›en: ˘w dÆ toi kteãtessi pepoiy∆w patrÚw •o›o mnãsket' ÉOduss∞ow dØn ofixom°noio dãmarta. Od. 20.287-90 De Jong acknowledges the strangeness of toi in her commentary note on Od. 287-90: “as often when dealing with the Suitors, the narrator makes no attempt to hide his personal distaste and turns to using character-language: éyem¤stia (…) and toi (only here and Il. 10.316, again in the context of an introduction, outside direct speech)” (2001: 499). One might add that the use of dÆ in these two passages is also very unusual. As we have seen in §6, the Homeric narrator does not ordinarily use dÆ to refer to ‘common ground’ between himself and his narratees that is based on familiar- ity with narratives other than his own. For this reason there is something to be said for printing ˘w d' ≥toi (see §9) rather than ˘w dÆ toi. What pleads against this intervention, however, is that Il. 10.316 and Od. 20.287 have much more in common than their occurence in the context of an introduction. The name Ctesippus means “owner of horses”; Dolon sets out on his reconnaissance mission to become the owner of the horses of Achilles (and his opponents Diomedes and Odysseus set out to steal the horses of Rhesus). Ctesippus derives confidence from his wealth, as does Dolon. Ctesippus’ ‘heroic’ exploit of hurling an ox-hoof at the beggar Odysseus (¶rrice boÚw pÒda, Od. 20.303), gains much in mock-epic cachet by comparison with Dolon’s “swiftness of feet” (pod≈khw, an epi- thet borrowed from his intended victim, Achilles). Dolon’s encounter with Odysseus ends in his death by the hands of Odysseus’ co-conspirator Diomedes (Il. 10.454-7); Ctesippus will be killed by Odysseus’ co- conspirator Philoetius, the ox-herd (Od. 22.285-91). After Dolon’s death, Odysseus raises his armor to dedicate it to Athena (tã g' ÉAyhna¤˙ … | ıcÒs' én°sxeye, Il. 10.460-1); shortly after the death of Ctesippus Athena raises her aegis (ÉAyhna¤h … afig¤d' én°sxen | ÍcÒyen, Od. 22.297-8) to startle the Suitors “like cattle” (bÒew Õw égela›ai, 299). In light of these correspondences it seems likely enough that Od. 20.289 reproduces a INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 63 remarkable, and therefore memorable, narrative faux pas of the Doloneia to hit home an allusion that is set up by 287 ∑n d° tiw §n mnhst∞rsin.60 Of the five instances of toi voiced by the narrator of the Argonautica, two are pronominal and refer to an explicit singular addressee: Apollo in 2.708 (afie¤ toi, ênaj, êtmhtoi ¶yeirai) and the Muse Erato in 3.5 (t« ka¤ toi §pÆraton oÎnom' én∞ptai). In the remaining three passages, Arg. 1.727, 2.841, and 3.958, toi can only be taken as an appeal to the narratees. In each case it appears in the context of a description, and reinforces an accompanying dÆ, as in Il. 10.316 and Od. 20.287: see §6.14 and n.50.61

9. ÖHtoi The usage of this epic-poetic particle has been discussed in detail by Frazer (1981) and Ruijgh (1981) for Homer, and by Sens (2000) for the Argonautica. Etymologically it must be a combination of the interactional particles ∑ and toi,62 but already Denniston warned that “perhaps toi here has lost some of its vividness (it is significant that it occurs not infre- quently in narrative, where toi is, generally speaking, rare), and is on its way to becoming a mere ancillary” (1954: 553-4).63 Ruijgh even holds that in Homer ≥toi has come to be essentially synonymous with preparatory m°n. However, in the Homeric epics ≥toi is twice as frequent in character- text, while preparatory m°n is is more frequent in narrator-text (§11.2). Moreover, there are quite a few instances of ≥toi in character-text (not in narrator-text) in all three epics where it clearly is the sum of its parts.64 Both facts suggest that Ruijgh’s assessment is not entirely accurate. ÖHtoi, I suggest, rather belongs in the category of éllã and gãr, i.e. that of particles that are not primarily interactional, but have an interactional nuance (§11.5). This classification agrees well with the description of Sens (2000), who argues that in the majority of instances in Apollonian narrator-text, ≥toi introduces a bipartite clarification or specification of a preceding statement, expressed in a m°n-clause and a d°/éllã-clause:

60. With this last phrase compare also Il. 5.9-10 (∑n d° tiw §n Tr≈essi Dãrhw éfneiÚw émÊmvn | ﬂreÁw ÑHfa¤stoio) and 13.663-4 (∑n d° tiw EÈxÆnvr Polu˝dou mãntiow uﬂÚw | éfneiÒw t' égayÒw te); all Iliadic passages are clearly interrelated. 61. With the exception of ≥toi (§9), toi in epic retains its full independent force with other particles. Attic m°ntoi, ka¤toi, and to¤nun are absent from all three epics; Apollonius even foresakes Homeric toigãr. 62. As opposed to ≥toi = disjunctive ≥ + toi, found in Herodotus and other prose authors in the combination ≥toi … ≥. In defense of the spelling ≥toi (rather than ∑ toi) see Denniston (1954: 553-4); Ruijgh (1971: 197-9; 1981: 272-3). 63. Denniston’s “generally speaking, rare” is understated for toi, but fits ∑; see §5, 8. 64. See Sens (2000: 175); Arg. 2.147, 3.15, 59, 171, 523. 64 MARTIJN CUYPERS

“to be precise (or actually, in fact, that is to say, namely) A and/but B”.65 The clarification sometimes amounts to a correction,66 as in “Talos circled Crete on bronze feet – actually (≥toi) he was made of bronze in all of his body and limbs (a), but below the ankle tendon he had a vein that carried blood (b)” (4.1645-7);67 or in: e·peto d' EÈrut¤vn te ka‹ élkÆeiw ÉErib≈thw uÂew ı m¢n Tel°ontow, ı d' ÖIrou ÉAktor¤dao: ≥toi ı m¢n Tel°ontow §ukleiØw ÉErib≈thw, ÖIrou d' EÈrut¤vn. Arg. 1.71-4 In the group too were Eurytion and bold Erybotes, one the son of Teleon, the other of Irus son of Actor – that is to say, glorious Erybotes was the son of Teleon, Eurytion the son of Irus [and not the other way around, as I perhaps inadvertently suggested by saying ı m°n … ı d°.] But it need not be a correction, as in “two other sons of Poseidon came as well, namely (≥toi) Erginus from Miletus (a) and Ancaeus from Parthenia (b)” (1.185-8); or “Ancaeus and Heracles took care of the oxen – to be precise (≥toi), Heracles hit one on the middle of the forehead with his club (a), and Ankaios cut the other’s neck with his axe (b)” (1.425-9); or “the two sides questioned each other in turn – that is to say (≥toi), Cyzi- cus asked the Argonauts about their voyage and Pelias’ orders (a), and the Argonauts asked Cyzicus about the neighbouring cities and the Propontis (b)” (1.980-3). Elsewhere ≥toi introduces a bipartite specification of a described object, as in “at a slant on both sides stood two loftier buildings, to wit (≥toi) one, the heighest, the dwelling of Aietes and his wife (a), the other that of Apsyrtus (b)” (3.238-41); or “to be more precise about this Prometheion (≥toi), its flower… (a), but its root… (b)” (3.854-7). Or it announces that an event, if one were to describe it precisely, takes place in two stages: “just as when shepherds or beekeepers smoke out a swarm of bees in a rock (general description of the event), these bees, to give a precise description (≥toi), for a while buzz furiously in their hive (a) but then, overcome by the smoke, dart far from the rock (b)” (2.130-4). Other applications of ≥toi, as Sens has shown convincingly, can be explained from this basic pattern by assuming that this particle functions at the level of the logical organization of discourse (just as éllã and gãr), and that it marks “the re-establishment of the narrator’s control over

65. In all but two instances in the Argonautica, ≥toi is closely conjoined with m°n, in both narrator- and character-text (Sens 2000: 176). Contrast Homer, where this is only the case in 47% of the instances (Ruijgh 1981: 276). 66. See Frazer (1981), who cites Il. 3.168, 4.22, Od. 11.595, 12.86, 15.6, 24.154 – and incorrectly claims that this use is not found in the Argonautica (p. 271; contra: Sens 2000: 178-80; Cuypers 2004: 54). 67. In this and most of the following translations, I have left out details of the text that are irrelevant to the pattern under discussion. INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 65 his material” (2000: 173). Interestingly, the narrators of the Iliad and Odyssey apparently feel the need to (re-)direct their narratives in this way just as often as Apollonius does.68

10. Evaluation I hope to have shown that paying attention to particle usage can help us gain a sharper picture of the differences between the narrative voice of the Argonautica and that of the Homeric epics. We have seen that in the Argonautica the particle usage of the narrator is much closer to that of his characters, and that he uses interactional particles to engage his narratees’ expectations in ways that are unparalleled in the Iliad and Odyssey. The narrators of these poems use such particles virtually never (toi, pou/poyi) or rarely (mÆn, ∑) or with serious restrictions (dÆ), because they do not fit the communicative protocol of epic narration, which is omniscient and authoritative, one-directional, and self-contained. The narrator of the Argo- nautica, however, is more complex. I have suggested elsewhere that his narrative persona is an amalgam of (at least) the Homeric singer of epic, the hymnic and Pindaric singers of praise, the Herodotean historian, and the Callimachean scholar, and that many peculiarities of the Argonau- tica’s narrative voice are the result of negotiation between the incompatible rhetorical strategies of the epic story-teller, who simply knows and states, inspired by the Muses, and the historian/scholar, who must argue from evidence to convince his audience (Cuypers 2004). In the toolkit of the latter, interactional particles occupy an important place.69

11. Appendix: Observations on Other Particles 11.1. d°, aÈtãr, étãr, ka¤, and te. Connective d° is “the primary sign of continuation and progression in Homeric Greek” (Bakker 1997a: 62) and by far the most common particle (more than twice as frequent as the runner-up, ka¤). Its distribution is very similar in all three epics: d° is about twice as frequent in narrator-text.70 The differences between the Argonautica and the Homeric epics are slight but may still be meaningful given the large number of instances. The lower overall frequency of d° in the Argonautica may indicate that Apollonius composes in larger clauses

68. In this respect too the data for ≥toi resemble those for éllã and gãr. Remarkable is first and foremost ≥toi’s sharp drop in frequency in Apollonian character-text. 69. I am grateful to Jackie Murray for her comments on this paper. 70. See on d° Bakker (1993a: 11-5; 1993b; 1997a: 62-85; 1997c: 297-300); also Klein (1992); Leumann (1949); Martín (1993); Ruijgh (1971: 128-35); Sicking (1993: 10-8). 66 MARTIJN CUYPERS and/or favors other connectives; the reduction of the gap between narrator-text and character-text (1.90 : 1 versus Il. 2.10 : 1 and Od. 2.13 : 1) suggests that in the use of connectives, too, the language of the Argonau- tica’s narrator is closer to that of his characters than in Homer. The data for aÈtãr in the Argonautica and Iliad support the idea that this particle largely functions as a metrical alternative to d°:71 the ratio between narrator-text and character-text is almost the same. The ‘anom- aly’ in the Odyssey is to a significant extent caused by a large number of instances of the sequence aÈtår §g≈/§m°/§m° in the embedded first-person narratives of books 3-4 and 9-12. In the Argonautica, aÈtãr interestingly shows a larger drop in overall frequency than d°. The data for étãr in the Iliad and Odyssey would not seem to support Denniston’s assumption that “Homer uses étãr and aÈtãr indifferently, according to metrical convenience” (1954: 51): the distribution over narrator-text and character-text is closer to that of (eliminative) éllã than to that of (neutral) aÈtãr/d°, and the same applies to the relationship between the three poems in column N3.72 In the Argonautica étãr occupies a position exactly in the middle between éllã and aÈtãr/d°. The data for ka¤ are a mirror image of those for d°. This particle is more frequent in character-text than in narrator-text, but here too the Argonautica shows a smaller gap between the two types of discourse, and a lower overall frequency (in this case largely due to a lower frequency of the particle in character-text). It should be noted that the instances of ka¤ used as a connective and used as a scope particle (‘adverbial’ ka¤) have not been separated out. However, this refinement would probably not alter the picture in a significant way.73 The third most common particle, te, would seem to be about equally amenable to use in narrator-text and character-text. Here, however, the instances of connective te and ‘epic’ te should be sorted out for an ade- quate evaluation. One would expect the distribution of connective te to be similar to that of ka¤, but ‘epic’ te to be more frequent in narrator-text than in character-text (with a significant drop in overall frequency in the Argonautica). It seems likely at any rate that the higher frequency of te in narrator-text in the Iliad as compared to the other poems is caused by the

71. See Ruijgh (1957: 29-55; 1971: 716-8; 1981: 277); K. Alpers, LfgrE aÈtãr; Bakker (1997a: 109-11). 72. See also R. van Bennekom and W.A. Beck, LfgrE étãr (where, unlike s.v. aÈtãr, the instances classified as “adversative” outnumber those classified as “progressive”) and Ruijgh (1971: 126-7, 134-5, 714-5). 73. On the use of ka¤ see esp. Bakker (1993b: 280, 284-91; 1997a: 71-4); Sicking (1993: 10-7); also Klein (1992); Ruijgh (1971: 130-3). On ka¤ as a scope particle see Bakker (1988: 297 s.v.); Wakker (1994: 329-39). INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 67

Iliad’s higher number of similes; similes occur nearly always in narrator- text, and they contain many instances of ‘epic’ te.74 11.2. m°n.75 The data do not distinguish between ‘preparatory’ and interactional ‘adversative’ m°n (= mÆn: see §4, where some examples are discussed). While overall m°n is almost equally frequent in both discourse types, there can be little doubt that interactional m°n is far more frequent in character-text, and that if one were to subtract the interactional instances, preparatory m°n would be more frequent in narrator-text in all three epics. The Argonautica shows a small increase in the frequency of this particle in narrator-text, which may be due to a higher use of interactional m°n there. 11.3. ge and per. In the Homeric epics the scope particles ge and per are both significantly more frequent in character-text, though the difference is larger for per than for ge.76 In the Argonautica the difference has become less pronounced for per, and has entirely disappeared for ge. In both cases this change is largely due to a sharply increased use of the particle in narrator-text, which is likely indicative of greater diaphonicity. 11.4. êra (=a, êr). The epic use of this particle substantially differs from that in Ionic-Attic prose.77 Apart from the relatively rare form êr it is far more common in narrator-text. In the Argonautica, all forms are significantly less frequent overall. For the form êra (and elided êr') the gap between the two discourse types has shrunk, and this is mostly due to a large drop in frequency in narrator-text, where the word is 2/3 times less frequent than in the Iliad and Odyssey. 11.5. gãr and éllã. These particles are more frequent in character- text, surely because they are not merely (re)presentational but also function on the interactional level of discourse. Unlike connective particles which organize information in a neutral, ‘sequential’ manner (such as d°, ka¤ and te), they provide insight into the intellectual activity of the speaker and his manipulation of addressee expectations. With gãr a speaker provides background information to what he has just told, anticipating a request for motivation, explanation or elaboration from his addressee.78 Clauses or

74. On ‘epic’ te see esp. Ruijgh (1971); also e.g. Bakker (1988: 72-5). In Homer, Ruijgh counts 813 instances (ca. 20% of the total), 514 in the Iliad and 299 in the Odyssey; these numbers would seem to support my simile hypothesis. On te in general see also Denniston (1954: 495-536); Klein (1992). 75. On m°n see Bakker (1993a: 11-5; 1997a: 80-5, 102-5; 1997c: 297-300); Denniston (1954: 359-97); see further nn. 23, 26. 76. On per see Bakker (1988; 1993c); Wakker (1994: 315-29); Ruijgh (1971: 443-7). On ge see Bakker (1988: 7-9, 18, 97-8); Wakker (1994: 308-15); Denniston (1954: 114-62). 77. For attempts to describe the epic use of êra see Bakker (1993a: 15-23; 1997a: 204- 5; 1997b: 5, 17-23); Grimm (1962); Ruijgh (1971: 432-43). See further Denniston (1954: 32-43); van Ophuijsen (1993: 101-39). 78. See de Jong (1987: 91-3; 1997); Bakker (1997a: 112-5); on gãr see further Sicking (1993: 20-5); Denniston (1954: 56-113). 68 MARTIJN CUYPERS phrases introduced by éllã eliminate an alternative or break off a train of thought. In terms of illocution they are are close to negated statements, with which they are frequently combined: they engage the expectations of the addressee, as in “(the Symplegades) are not (oÈ) firmly rooted but (éllã) clash together constantly” (rocks should not move, but these do, Arg. 2.320-1); or in “but not even so (éll' oÈd' Àw) Agamemnon stopped fighting” (as would have been reasonable to expect, Il. 11.255).79

References Bakker, E.J., Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and the Description of the Particle per (Amsterdam 1988). ^^, “Discourse and performance: involvement, visualization and ‘presence’ in Homeric poetry”, ClAnt 12 (1993a), 1-29. ^^, Topics, boundaries, and the structure of discourse: an investigation of the particle d°”, Studies in Language 17 (1993b), 275-311. ^^, “Concession and identification: the diachronic development of the particle per”, in L. Isebaert (ed.), Miscellanea linguistica Graeco-Latina (Namur 1993c), 1-17. ^^, Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse (Ithaca/London 1997a). ^^, “Story-telling in the future: truth, time, and tense in Homeric epic”, in E.J. Bakker and A. Kahane (eds.), Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text (Cambridge, MA 1997b), 11-36. ^^, “The study of Homeric discourse”, in I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997), 284-304. Berkowitz, G., Semi-public Narration in Apollonius’ Argonautica (Leuven 2004). Blomqvist, J., Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose (Lund 1969). Campbell, M., Index Verborum in Apollonium Rhodium (Hildesheim 1983). ^^, A Commentary on Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica III 1-471 (Leiden 1994). Clare, R.J., The Path of the Argo: Language, Imagery and Narrative in the Argo- nautica of Apollonius Rhodius (Cambridge 2002). Cuypers, M., “Apollonius of Rhodes”, in de Jong a.o. (2004), 43-62. De Jong, I.J.F., Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad (Amsterdam 1987; London 22004). ^^, “Gãr introducing embedded narratives”, in Rijksbaron (1997), 175-85. ^^, A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey (Cambridge 2001). ^^, “Introduction” and “Homer”, in de Jong a.o. (2004), 1-24. De Jong, I.J.F., R. Nünlist, and A. Bowie (eds.), Narrators, Narratees, and Nar- ratives in Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden 2004). Denniston, J.D., The Greek Particles (Oxford 21954). Duhoux, Y., “Les particules grecques: les situations homérique et mycénienne”, in id. (ed.), Langue et langues: hommage à Albert Maniet (Leuven 1998), 13-42. Durán López, M. de los Ángeles, “Las partículas griegas y las funciónes de comunicación”, REspLing 30 (2000), 45-76.

79. On ‘presentation through negation’ see de Jong (1987: 61-8); on éllã Sicking (1993: 35-40); Slings (1997: 106-14); Denniston (1954: 1-31). Kroon (1995: 117) rightly categorizes negations among the ‘challengeability markers’, “on account of the fact that they involve the rejection of an implicit option of idea.” See also §4 on oÈ mÆn/m°n. INTERACTIONAL PARTICLES AND NARRATIVE VOICE 69

Fraser, B., “An approach to discourse markers”, Journal of Pragmatics 14 (1990), 383-95. Frazer R.M., “Corrective ≥toi in Homer and Hesiod”, Mnemosyne 34 (1981), 265-71. Griffin, J., “Homeric words and speakers”, JHS 106 (1986), 36-57. Grimm, J., “Die Partikel êra im frühen griechischen Epos”, Glotta 40 (1962), 3-41. Hunter, R., Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica Book III (Cambridge 1989). ^^, The Argonautica of Apollonius: Literary Studies (Cambridge 1993a). ^^ (tr.), Apollonius of Rhodes, Jason and the Golden Fleece (The Argonautica) (Oxford 1993b). ^^, “The poetics of narrative in the Argonautica”, in T.D. Papanghelis and A. Rengakos (eds.), A Companion to Apollonius Rhodius (Leiden 2001), 93-125. ^^, “Le Argonautiche di Apollonio Rodio e la tradizione epica”, in R. Hunter and M. Fantuzzi, Muse e modelli (Rome/Bari 2002), 121-75. Jucker, A.H., and Y. Ziv (eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory (Amsterdam 1998). Klein, J., “Some Indo-European systems of conjunction: Rigveda, Old Persian, Homer”, HSPh 94 (1992), 1-51. Kroon, C.H.M., “Discourse connectives and discourse type: the case of Latin at”, in J. Herman (ed.), Linguistic Studies on Latin (Amsterdam 1994), 303-17. ^^, Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at (Amsterdam 1995). Leumann, M., “M°n und mÆn, d° und dÆ”, MH 6 (1949), 85-9 = KS (1959), 229-33. Martín López, M.I., “La función discursiva de la partícula griega d°”, Habis 24 (1993), 219-34. Rijksbaron, A. (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles (Amsterdam 1997). Roulet, E., a.o., L’articulation du discours en français contemporain (Bern 1985). Ruijgh, C.J., L’élément achéen dans la langue épique (Assen 1957). ^^, Autour de ‘te épique’ (Amsterdam 1971). ^^, “L’emploi de ≥toi chez Homère et Hésiode”, Mnemosyne 34 (1981), 272-87. Schiffrin, D., Discourse Markers (Cambridge 1987). Sens, A. “The particle ≥toi in Apollonian narrative”, in: M.A. Harder, R.F. Regt- uit, and G.C. Wakker (eds.), Apollonius Rhodius (Leuven 2000), 173-93. Sicking, C.M.J., “Devices for text articulation in Lysias I and XII”, in id. and J.M. van Ophuijsen, Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage (Leiden 1993), 1-66. Slings, S.R., “Adversative relators between push and pop”, in Rijksbaron (1997), 101-29. Van Ophuijsen, J.M., “OÔn, êra, dÆ, to¤nun: the linguistic articulation of arguments in Plato’s Phaedo”, in id. and C.M.J. Sicking, Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage (Leiden 1993), 67-164. Vian, F. (ed., ann.), and É. Delage (tr.), Apollonios de Rhodes, Argonautiques, 3 vols. (Paris 1974; 21993; 21996). Wackernagel, J., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen 1916). Wakker, G.C., Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek (Amsterdam 1994). ^^, “The discourse function of particles: some observations on the use of mãn/ mÆn in Theocritus”, in M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, and G.C. Wakker (eds.), Theocritus (Groningen 1996), 247-63. ^^, “Emphasis and affirmation: some aspects of mÆn in tragedy”, in Rijksbaron (1997), 209-31.