DD EE CC II SS II OO NN SS FFUUTTUURREE,, PPAASSTT AANNDD PPRREESSEENNTT

The use of tenses in Septem contra Thebas, 369-676

Candidate Number 47940 Presubmitted Essay for option C (iv): Aeschylus

Master of Studies in Greek and/or Latin Languages and Literature

2

DECISIONS FUTURE, PAST AND PRESENT The use of tenses in Septem contra Thebas, 369-676

Jedes Wort des Dichters ist relevant. Hartmut Erbse

T H E P R O B L E M

The central scene of the Septem contra Thebas (Th.), alternatively known as the Shield Scene or by the

appropriate German term Redepaare, consists of a sequence of speeches by the Theban Scout and the

king Eteocles, interspersed with short choral lyrics. At the beginning of this long act, immediately

following the first stasimon, Eteocles and the Scout hastily (, 371; , 374) come back on

stage. Just before he left, Eteocles had announced:

,

. As for me, I will go and post at the seven exits in the walls six menmyself as seventhas champions

against the enemies, in grand fashion, before hasty messengers and fast-rushing reports arrive and inflame us by urgent need. (A. Th. 282-6)1

Eteocles needs seven defenders to oppose seven Argive warriors, who have drawn lots to decide who

will attack each of the Theban gates. In the Shield Scene, the Scout reveals to Eteocles the names and

shield-blazonry of the attacking fighters; the king in turn names for each gate a Theban warrior to

defend it (and thus for each Argive an adversary). The attackers, in the Scouts descriptions, are

characterized by aggression and disdain for the gods (with the notable exception of Amphiaraus);

Eteocles names Thebans with modesty and courage to match them. The final pairing is that of

Eteocles himself with his own brother, Polyneices. Faced with this climactic outcome, Eteocles

laments the fate of his house ( (...) , 654), before he regains his composure

and decides to face his brother (over the stringent objections of the Chorus). This decision will lead

to the mutual fratricide which is the final realization of Oedipusand the familyscurse.

The verbs Eteocles uses for each of his assignments vary in tense: they are, respectively, a future

(, 407), a perfect (, 447), a perfect (, 473), an aorist (, 505), a present

(, 553), a future (, 621) and for Eteocles himself a pair of futures (

, 672). This variation of tenses is a much-vexed point in the scholarship on the play. The

1 All translations provided are mine.

3

immediate problem that arises from the tense-variationhow should we envisage the stage action

during the scene, or more generally, what is actually happening?also has wider implications for our

interpretation of Eteocles character, his ability to make choices of his own volition, the influence of

the Labdacids curse, in short, for the play as a whole and even the trilogy to which it belonged.

T H R E E S O L U T I O N S

Notwithstanding the enormous amount of articles and commentaries written on this problem,

opinions may, as Wilkens (1974), Lenz (1981) and Conacher (1996) have each pointed out, be

divided roughly into three categories:2

(1) Some scholars believe that Eteocles has made all of his appointments during the preceding choral ode. Eteocles then reports his decisions as each gate and attacking Argive are

mentioned by the scout.3

(2) Others see Eteocles as making every assignment on the spot, selecting his champions (perhaps from a pre-selected set of six) by their appropriate characteristics to defeat the Argive warriors. This group may be further divided between those who would have Eteocles bring six

champions on stage with him,4 and those who see the effect of each appointment taking place

offstage, or see the appointments as being carried out after Eteocles leaves again.5

(3) Finally, Wilamowitz first championed the idea that some of Eteocles preparations have been left unfinished before the beginning of the scene, so that some posts have already been filled,

yet some appointments are made during the scene.6

These three alternatives yield greatly differing conceptions of the play as a whole, and are indeed

often resorted to in defence of such conceptions. For example, the founder of the first

interpretation, Erwin Wolff (1958), sees the Shield Scene as the slow revealing of irreversible divine

intention: Eteocles, having already made each of his postings, is gradually confronted (so goes the

argument) with the fact that he has positioned himself against his own brother. This is all the work of

the houses Erinys, whose full might becomes clear to Eteocles once he realizes the consequences of

his earlier choices. There is, in this view, no trace of free will in Eteocles choice to face Polyneices, as

2 Some scholars, of course, do not neatly fit the typology. Dawe 1963, for example, explains the tense-variation as the result of an inconsistency in dealing with plot and character that he considers typical of Aeschylus (I disagree). Other solutions have been offered in Lenz 1981 (discussed below), Ryzman 1987 and Court 1994 (cf. n.15 below). 3 Erbse 1964; Otis 1960; Patzer 1958; Wolff 1958. 4 Hogan 1984; Rose 1957; Weir Smyth 1930. Also Butler, Blomfield, Tucker, Verrall, Sidgwick, Bodensteiner, Murray, Vellacott and Schadewaldt (these are mentioned by Taplin 1977: 150n.1). The idea of champions appearing on stage is heavily influenced by two deictic pronouns in the speeches of Eteocles (, 408 and , 472), both of which have been emended or excised in several editions. 5 Ferrari 1978; von Fritz 1962; Kirkwood 1969; Taplin 1977; Wilkens 1974. I would also include Hutchinson (ad 369-652), but his true opinion on the matter is left frustratingly unclear. 6 Conacher 1996; Groeneboom 1938; Italie 1950; Lesky 1966a; Sommerstein 1996; Wilamowitz 1914.

4

the decision to go to the seventh gate has long been made: Die Gtter selbst hatten ihm den Bruder

als Gegner gesandt (Wolff 1958: 94).

Proponents of the second and third views, on the other hand, would have Eteocles make the

decisions to post certain Thebans against certain Argives in full consciousness, so that his own free

decisions lead him to a point where he has to choose to face his brother: Eteocles (...) ultimately

makes the decision to go to the seventh gate of his own will. Eteocles dash to the seventh gate, then,

is neither the act of a man utterly maddened by the Curse (...) nor of a man irrevocably trapped by

fate (DeVito 1999: 170).

How we interpret the different tenses is thus of pivotal significance for the interpretation of the

whole scene. So how should we interpret the tenses? Perhaps a better question to deal with first is:

how can we interpret the tenses? But before moving on to that question, some peripheral matters

need to be dealt with.

C I R C U M S T A N T I A L E V I D E N C E

Apart from the various tenses, debate has raged mostly around two passages. The first is Eteocles

announcement quoted above, in which he says he will go and make arrangements

| (285-6). Much has been made

of this phrase by Wolff and especially by a militaristic Erbse, who takes it to mean:

Eteokles will die Aufstellung anordnen, bevor die Nachricht dringender Not eintrifft. (...) Gibt also

das Konstruktion deutlich zu erkennen, da der Befehl zur Aufstellung der Kommandanten

ausgegeben sein wird, bevor weitere Nachrichten ber die Feindlage eintreffen, so wird der

aufmerksame Zuschauer (und nur dieser kann bercksichtigt werden) beim Erscheinen des Boten

zu Beginn des nchsten Auftrittes (369ff) zur Folgerung gezwungen, da Eteokles seine

Anordnungen in der Zwischenzeit gegeben habe. (...) Die Hast aber, in der Knig und Spher nach

dem ersten Stasimon auftreten, darf nicht zu dem Schlu verleiten, Eteokles habe sein

Anordnungen nicht vollenden knnen. Eine solche Folgerung wre nicht nur sachlich

unwarscheinlich (jeder Soldat wei, wie rasch ein klar durchdachter Befehl gegeben, d.h. aber auf

den Weg der Verwirklichung gebracht ist), sondern sie wrde auch einer Aussage des Autors

widersprechen. Diese aber mssen wir ernst nehmen, solange wir Aischylos fr einen wirklichen

Dichter halten. (Erbse 1964: 204)

There is nothing in the play, however, that prevents us from entertaining the idea that Eteocles has

not completed his arrangements before the arrive. As Eteocles announces a

future effort (), there is no way to guarantee that he in fact will finish in time, only that he intends

to do so. In fact, the double mention of by the Chorus at 371-4 may well give rise to the very

impression that Erbse condemns, and we know (as is pointed out somewhat pedantically by von Fritz

1962: 201) that Eteocles has not fully completed all his preparations, as he himself is not yet at his

gate. Let it suffice to say that these particular lines do not rule out any interpretation whatsoever (it

5

should be stressed that I am saying no more here than that the second and third options are not

intrinsically improbable in the light of this passage).

The same is true, however, of the conflict between the Chorus and Eteocles after his decision (677-

719), a passage frequently adduced by defenders of Eteocles free will. It is certainly true that the

Chorus offers Eteocles an alternative course of action, which he deliberately chooses not to pursue. Yet

this says nothing of Eteocles previous decisions, and to those who would see the matching of the

brothers as purely a device of the gods, those earlier decisions are the only ones that matter.

In short, none of the three possible explanations mentioned above faces insurmountable problems

in the text, other than the tenses in Eteocles speeches, to which I now turn. Again, the first question

to answer is: what can the tenses mean? Can the future tense be used, as Wolff and Erbse argue, to

denote past decisions? Can perfects refer to a decision being taken at the moment of speaking? I will

deal with these questions one at a time.

T A K I N G T H I N G S A T F A C E V A L U E

If we take the futures as referring to decisions to come, and the perfects and the aorist referring to

decisions already made in the past, there remains no other choice but to side with Wilamowitz and

his followers, who believe that Eteocles has left some of his postings unfinished. The perfects and the

aorist would then refer to assignations made during the first stasimon, while the futures are used to

denote appointments made during or after the Shield Scene.

The most graphic expression of this interpretation was offered by Sommerstein, who believes that

the order of the tenses is crucial. His argument boils down to this:

(schematically portrayed on the basis of Sommerstein 1996: 105)

N

Tydeus Melanippus

Polyneices Eteocles

Eteoclus Megareus

Capaneus Polyphontes

Amphiaraus Lasthenes

Hippomedon Hyperbius

V

VI

I

VII

II

III

Parthenopaeus Actor

IV

THEBES

6

Sommerstein believes that Eteocles has not yet had time to set in order his arrangements for the gates

I, VI and VII, which lie adjacent to each other in the citys circular walls. In the figure, the shaded

part of Thebes has not been organized by the king when time runs out. Defenders are still lacking for

the eastern gates that are attacked (as it turns out during the scene) by the three outstanding figures

among the Seven, Amphiaraus, Polyneices and Tydeus. (Sommerstein 1996: 106).

The tenses of the verbs may in this way be interpreted at face value, and this seems to solve a lot of

problems. However this view in turn raises significant problems of dramaturgic nature: if Eteocles has

assigned only half of his champions, then why does the scene read as an entirely symmetrical affair?

[T]he entire shape and disposition of the structure make the audience assume that the same thing is

happening each time (...) and the tenses of Eteocles verbs alone will not make the audience think

that he is meeting the challenges in different waysnow by a fait accompli, now by a command, now by a memorandum. (Taplin 1977: 145)

Furthermore, this interpretation forces us to assume that Eteocles selects several of his candidates to

face an as yet anonymous challenger, and others in reaction to a specific attacker. It appears

throughout the scene, however, that Eteocles choices are particularly suitable for the specific attacker

they will face.7

A scholastic solution was offered by Lenz (1981), who wished to take the tenses to mean what they

mean, but distinguished between two separate stages of selection: and :

Eteocles has assigned each man to his gate, but now reassigns them against specific attackers.

Eteocles says (and I am here using Lenz own schemata): I have assigned A against AA at a (as I have

assigned A to a), and I will assign B against BB at b (as I have assigned B to b). Eteocles is then

using the tenses semi-correctly, as he has in the past not assigned defenders against attackers, but

only to gates, and he will not really assign defenders against attackers in the future, as the assignments

are already made. I hesitate to ask the clich question, but can we really expect a member of the

Athenian audience to have grasped this?

Any reading that takes the tenses literally does not, therefore, seem to be the most natural one for

the scene. If there remains no other, we will have to opt for this most unattractive (Hutchinson ad

369-652) solution, but at the very least, an examination of the other two alternatives is called for.

T H E F U T U R E I S P A S T ?

Wolffs very tentative suggestion that Eteocles, by his use of the future tense , means ich

werde ihm gegenber stellen das heisst er wird ihm gegenber stehen (der gltige Akt der Auswahl

7 Lenz 1981 suggests that most of the Theban defenders have more or less the same qualities, and might therefore be considered austauschbar. This hardly applies, however, to the defenders selected for Amphiaraus and Polyneices.

7

ist aber schon getroffen (Wolff 1958: 93), has found but one supporter8 and may be dismissed

summarily. Lesky asks:

Knnen die Futura das besagen? So wie sie dastehen? (...) Ich bezweifle das durchaus, wir erhalten

auch bei WOLFF keine Begrndung, die das zunchst probeweise Angenommene als zwingend

richtig erwiese. (Lesky 1966a: 266)

Lesky is right: the first person future indicative of can mean I will station or I will be

stationing, but hardly I have stationed and that will mean that.... Wolff thus has to violently

compromise the meaning of the verb for his solution to work.

More interesting is Erbses suggestion that Eteocles uses the future tense in response to the futures

used by the Scout. So when, in the first Redepaar, the Scout asks ; (395) and

Eteocles answers (408), Eteocles picks up the future tense of the scout, even though he is

really describing a past action. Erbse compares this to the use of the future tense with verbs of

speaking in the announcement of the content or style of a speech (cf. with Erbse A. Eum. 585:

, ), and he paraphrases Ich will deine Mahnung mit folgender

Disposition beantworten. But in such cases, the future tense retains its full force as an

announcement of future speech, and to force that sense on is again to stretch the meaning

of beyond recognition. Erbse himself has to admit, da sich eine genaue Entsprechung fr

die Verwendung der beiden Futura (...) nicht finden lt. (1964: 6)

Such speculation may thus be dispatched quite easily:9 there is simply nothing for it, and we must

conclude that the futures refer to postings not yet made: Jede andere Interpretation tut der Sprache

Gewalt an. (Wilkens 1974: 78)

T H E P A S T I S P R E S E N T ?

I now move on to what appears to be an equally strong objection to the view that takes Eteocles as

selecting his champions on the spot: doesnt the use of perfects and an aorist rule this out? I mean to

show that it does not.

A general remark about the perfect tense is in order. Khner-Gerth describe the semantic value of

that tense as follows:

Das griechische Perfekt unterschiedet sich (...) von den anderen Sprachen dadurch, dass es nicht

bloss eine gegenwrtig vollendete Handlung, sondern die vollendete Handlung zugleich auch als in

ihren Wirkungen und Folgen noch fortbestehend bezeichnet. (...) [Die Griechen fassen] weniger

den eigentlichen Akt der Vollendung als das aus der Vollendung fr die Gegenwart hervorgehende

8 Maltomini 1976: 79-80. We may perhaps see tacit support for Wolffs thesis in Patzer 1958 and Otis 1960, who both ignore the problem. 9 Other than representing a future state of affairs, only two slightly specialized uses for the future indicative are recognized in grammars: the generalizing (cf. Khner-Gerth 387.4; Rijksbaron 2002: 9) and the inferential (Bakker 2002; Rijksbaron 2002: 9 n. 2) uses. Neither is relevant here.

8

Egebnis, den durch die Vollendung der Thtigkeitsusserung eingetretenen Zustand ins Auge (...)

(384, 2-3).

Rijksbaron, using more recent linguistic terminology, gives the following description:

the perfect stem signifies both that a state of affairs is completed and that as a result a state exists

(stative-confective value); (...) the primary perfect indicative (commonly: perfect) locates the state at the moment of utterance (the present) (Rijksbaron 2002: 2-3).

This semantic value is intrinsic to the Greek perfect,10 yet it is often ignored by referring to the perfect

as a past tense (which it is not) and by the standard way of translating it with the English perfect (pace

e.g. Morwood 2001: 60).11 It must not be ignored here. The fact that the perfect describes a state in

the present (arising from a completed preceding action) facilitates its common rhetorical use in

describing states resulting from a present action, or even states resulting from future actions,12 as in

the following example:

, | If he shall notice me while master of his bow, I am lost. (S. Ph. 75-6)

It is this rhetorical use of the perfect that some interpreters see at work in the Shield Scene. Kirkwood

asserts, for example, that the only reasonable interpretation of these past tenses [sic] is that they

indicate the readiness with which Eteocles can match, with superbly contrasted qualities, defender for

attacker: Polyphontes has here and now been assigned his appropriate place, Megareus hasso far as

decision is concernedbeen sent to his match, Hyperbius stands selected, (I

shall return to this paraphrase later).

The first to propose the full-blown use of this interpretation of the perfect for the Shield Scene was

von Fritz (1962), who bases his claims on an earlier treatment by Fraenkel (1957). There is one

occurrence of the perfect in the Redepaare which, as von Fritz points out, very much invites the

rhetorical interpretation of the perfect. It is this one:

. . . , , ,

10 According to Chantraine and Wackernagel, this value of the perfect gradually disappeared from Greek, making it nearly an equivalent of the aorist. Against this pertinent objections were raised by McKay, Ruijgh and Rijksbaron (cf. Rijksbaron 1984). The argument is in any case irrelevant here, for we are still, by the time of Aeschylus, in what both sides would consider the earlier phase of the original use of the perfect. 11 The Greek perfect is often best rendered by an English present ( = I possess) or in some cases even by elaborate descriptions ( comes closer to I am the one who has raised than I have raised). 12 The perfect with rhetorical emphasis is so used, dass eine noch nicht eingetretene Handlung als bereits vollendet, der daraus sich ergebende Zustand als schon vorhanden antizipiert wird (Khner-Gerth 384, 3).

9

(Scout:) Against this man, too, you must send a champion, to keep the yoke of slavery off this city.

(Eteocles:) I would already send this man, and with good fortune. Indeed, he now has his assignment, with his two hands to do the boasting: Megareus (...) (A. Th. 470-4).

Now, whether or not we wish, with Fraenkel, to athetize line 472 ( ...) is not really germane

to my point. Even if it stays, von Fritz is surely right in saying that with , Eteocles

gives immediate fulfilment to the request just made by the scout (). Of this use of the perfect,

in denen der Gegenstand einer Aufforderung als schon verwirklicht bezeichnet wird (von Fritz

1962: 203), Fraenkel had adduced several clear examples (1957: 31-2). One of those refers irrefutably

to the present realization of a request just made:

. , ; . . . ; (Chorus:) Queen Athena, what seat do you say I have? (Athena:) One clear of troubles. Accept

it, I beg you. (Chorus:) Even if Ive accepted: what honour remains for me? (A. Eum. 892-4)

In this case, as von Fritz points out, the Furies cannot have accepted an offer before Athena has made

it. The verb thus refers to the immediate completion and the resulting state of the

Eumenides acceptance.13 The best way to view such perfects is as performatives: by uttering the word,

the action is done (we need only imagine a dignitary uttering something like The Museum is hereby

opened to see that English has close parallels.14 This is exactly how in Th. 472 may be quite

elegantly interpreted. Eteocles responds to the Scouts request by saying: See: it is done! Megareus is

the one sent.

The question arises whether we may for the other cases (, 448, and the aorist , 505)

assert a similar sense of immediacy. Let me briefly circumvent that question by pointing to a striking

similarity between all the assignments apart from those in the future tense. On close reading, Eteocles

stresses in each of these cases not so much the action of selecting his champions, but their state of

readiness, their status as the men chosen for the job. I may elaborate this by briefly adducing the

relevant passages:

, , , ,

, The man to engage himno matter how arrogant he ishas his posting: it is the mighty

Polyphontes, burning with resolve, a reliable defender. (A. Th. 447-9)

13 The sense suppose I have accepted arises from the context, in which the Furies acceptance must remain hypothetical until they finally agree. This is a pragmatically interesting use (common with , cf. Denniston 1950: 251-3) , but changes nothing about the semantic value of . 14 For a lucid discussion of performatives, cf. Levinson 1983: 228-37 and his index. Greek performatives are, very infrequently, also found in the aorist tense (the tragic aorist, cf. Lloyd 1997). I do not believe that (505) can be explained as a tragic aorist, nor does Lloyd believe that any examples of it may be found in Aeschylus (1997: 45).

10

The perfect , as discussed above, refers not so much to the action as to the result of

that action: Polyphontes is the man who has been given the posting, the right man to face Capaneus

( ).

, ,

,

Hyperbius, Oenops trusty son, was selected as man to face that man. (504-5)

Italie is very right in his commentary (ad loc.) to stress the importance of the predicative

. Here too, even though the aorist describes the action of selecting Hyperbius itself, it is

not so much that action that is stressed, as it is the fact that he is the man to face Hippomedon. It is

also noteworthy that in Kirkwoods paraphrase quoted above, the aorist is quite adequately (though

strictly speaking incorrectly) rendered by a stative English verb: Hyperbius stands selected.

, , , ,

There is someone to fight this Arcadian of whom you speak also; a man who does not boast: his

hand marks what must be done: Actor () (553-5)

Weir Smyth here translates with we have our man, which is spot on. Again, Actors state of

readiness, his availability to do battle, is what seems to me the focus of Eteocles attention (note the

emphatically placed ).

Each of the speeches thus refers to the specific state of a Theban warrior rather the action of

selecting that warrior. The picture that arises is of an Eteocles who is not on stage to give an account

of his past decisions (as Wolff would have him), but who is very much concerned with the men he

appoints themselves, their status as defenders of the city and their suitability to face the opponents

which the Scout has just named.

Does that bring us any closer to solving the problem of the past tenses? Perhaps. It is useful to

note here that in direct speech, the point of reference of any past tense (including the aorist, which

signifies a completed action) may lie in an extremely recent past. For example, Homeric characters can

say ; (aorist) in reaction to an immediately preceding speech by another

character. Useful remarks on this characteristic of the aorist are offered by Rijksbaron:

In a narrative the state of affairs concerned is usually completed relative to another state of affairs in

the context; in direct speech, on the other hand, the aorist indicative usually indicates that the state

of affairs is completed relative to the moment of utterance. (...) The distance in time between the state

of affairs and the moment of utterance is not specified: the completion of the state of affairs is

simply ascertained (constative use of the aorist indicative). (...) [T]he state of affairs may have been

completed only a very short time before the moment of utterance [and we find used together

with the aorist]. (2002: 8.3.1)

11

Therefore, even the aorist (505) could very well refer to a selection made just moments earlier,

almost at the moment of speaking. As we have seen, the point of reference for the perfect tense is

subject to yet more liberal restrictions, as it can refer to a state of affairs completed at the moment of

speaking or even in the future. Having this in mind, and emphasizing that each of Eteocles speeches is

meant not as a report of the decision itself but as an expression of the ready state of the man decided

upon, I think it is not in opposition with the Greek to view each of the past tenses as referring to

decisions made on the spot. Eteocles then is taken to say, in response to each of the Scouts messages,

either This is my ready selection/Here is our man/This is my posting or Him I will post and

finally I will go.

The advantages of this interpretation are clear: first, we do not have to deal with the frustrating

inconsistency that some champions are sent against anonymi, whereas others are selected on the spur

of the moment. The symmetry of the scene is thus retained. Furthermore, this interpretation allows

us to hold on to what I think is an important aspect of the scene, Eteocles free will. It is a fine piece

of dramatic irony that Eteocles is making his decisions on stage, slowly eliminating, in ignorance, his

dwindling chances to escape from the confrontation with his brother. To rob the scene of this effect,

as Wolff and his followers have done, is in my opinion intolerable.15

Why then does Aeschylus vary the tenses? I would suggest that Hutchinson (ad 369-652) was not

far from the truth when he remarked that the future tenses convey something of urgency, and that

they also ensure that the audience feels, for specifically the first and last gate (and the important case

of Amphiaraus), that the decision and outcome are still up in the air. The perfects, however, convey

rather more a sense of confidence: the postings, at the very moment they are made, are already secure.

Hutchinson feels that the atmosphere of the scene thus moves in transitions, from very tense and

anxious, to assured, to a renewed state of anxiety (and he shows quite convincingly that the Chorus

moves along with these tendencies).

It is, incidentally, not tense alone which creates this atmosphere: surely it is no coincidence that

the verbs in the future tense are also the only verbs in the first person (, ,

). Eteocles takes very personal responsibility for these three crucial decisions, whereas

his involvement in the other four selections is minimized by the use of third-person, passive verbs

(and ). Those four assignations are thus presented almost as immutable fact, in strong contrast

with the uncertainty which surrounds his pivotal future-tense decisions.

All this, like Hutchinson says (ibid.), is aimed at the audience, and it works at quite an unconscious

level. But the fact that an audience did not perceive a transition does not mean that they did not feel it.

15 We must not see this as being in opposition with the notion of a divine will, or the fulfilment of a curse: Lesky, building on his enquiry into doppelte Motivation in Homer (1961), has shown that for Aeschylus too, there is a union of fatal necessity and personal will (1966b: 84). Court (1994) sees the variation of tenses as a deliberately inconsistent expression of this double motivation (the future tenses referring to Eteocles volition, the past tenses to divine will); yet this position forces Court to emphatically reject the notion of a konkret vorstellbare, einheitliche Situation on stage (1994: 83), and I cannot agree with her in this respect.

12

I conclude, simply, by quoting two remarks that portray best my own opinion on the tenses and the

scene as a whole:

[Die Perfekta knnen] in den Antworten des Eteokles das Augenblickliche der Entscheidung, die

sich aus der Sachlage ergibt, bedeuten. (von Fritz 1962: 204)

Eteocles selections and assignations are to be thought of as having effect off-stage, even though no actual physical sign is made or messenger sent. In realistic terms this would be to give Eteocles

supernatural powers, but in dramatic terms it seems quite possible. The Scout vividly conjures up

the aggressors (...): when Eteocles matches each he not only talks about the conquering qualities of

the defender, but by assigning him verbally he puts the move into action. (...) [I]n their vivid

dramatic context his words are as good as action, and (...) for the audience they are supposed to be

translated into action off-stage. (Taplin 1977: 155-6)16

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

COLLARD, C. (2002). Aeschylus Oresteia, transl. with an introduction and notes by . Oxford: Oxford UP.

CONACHER, D.J. (1996). Aeschylus: The Earlier Plays and Related Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

COURT, B. (1994). Die dramatische Technik des Aischylos. Stuttgart: Teubner.

DAWE, R.D. (1963). "Inconsistency of Plot and Character in Aeschylus". Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 9.1963, 21-62.

DENNISTON, J.D. (1950). The Greek Particles, 2nd ed. rev. by K.J. Dover. London: Duckworth.

DEVITO, A. (1999). "Eteocles, Amphiaraus, and Necessity in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes". Hermes 127, 165-71.

ERBSE, H. (1964). "Interpretationsprobleme in den Septem des Aischylos". Hermes 92, 1-22.

FERRARI, F. (1978). "Ancora sulla cronologia interna dei Sette contro Tebe". Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica 29, 39-48.

FRAENKEL, E. (1957). Die sieben Redepaare im Thebanerdrama des Aeschylus. Mnchen: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

GROENEBOOM, P. (1938). Aeschylus Zeven Tegen Thebe, met inleiding, critische noten en commentaar uitgegeven door . Groningen: Wolters.

HOGAN, J.C. (1984). A Commentary on the Complete Greek Tragedies: Aeschylus. Chicago: University of Chicago.

HUTCHINSON, G.O. (1985). Aeschylus Septem contra Thebas, Ed. with introd. and comment. by . Oxford: Clarendon.

ITALIE, G. (1950). Aeschylus Zeven tegen Thebe, met inleiding en aantekeningen door . Leiden: Brill.

KIRKWOOD, G.M. (1969). "Eteocles Oiakostrophos". Phoenix 23.1, 9-25.

KHNER, R. & B. GERTH (1890). Ausfhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 2. Bd.: Satzlehre. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.

LENZ, J. (1981). "Zu Aischylos' Septem". Hermes 109, 415-39.

16 Note that Taplin objects to in Th. 284 and would change it to or even delete 282-6 altogether. This is in my opinion entirely unnecessary, cf. my remarks on these lines above on pp. 4-5.

13

LESKY, A. (1961). Gttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Heidelberg: Winter.

(1966a). "Eteokles in den Sieben gegen Theben", in: , Gesammelte Schriften: Aufstze und Reden zu antiker und deutscher Dichtung und Kultur, hrsg. von W. Kraus. Bern: Francke, .

(1966b). "Decision and Responsibility in the Tragedy of Aeschylus". Journal of Hellenic Studies 86, 78-85.

LEVINSON, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

LLOYD, M. (1997). "The Tragic Aorist". Classical Quarterly 49.1, 24-45.

MALTOMINI, F. (1976). "La scelta dei difensori delle sette porte nei Sette a Tebe di Eschilo". Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica 21, 65-80.

MORWOOD, J. (2001). The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek, Greece & Rome. Oxford: Oxford UP.

OTIS, B. (1960). "The Unity of the Seven against Thebes". Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 3.1960, 153-74.

PATZER, H. (1958). "Die Dramatische Handlung der Sieben Gegen Theben". Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 63, 97-119.

RIJKSBARON, A. (1984). "Het Griekse Perfectum: Subject Contra Object". Lampas 17.5, 403-19.

(2002). Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Gieben.

ROSE, H.J. (1957). A Commentary on the Surviving Plays of Aeschylus. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.

RYZMAN, M. (1987). "The Departure of the Champions in Aeschylus' Septem". Hermes 115, 116-9.

SOMMERSTEIN, A.H. (1996). Aeschylean Tragedy. Bari: Levante.

TAPLIN, O. (1977). The Stagecraft of Aeschylus: The Dramatic Use of Exits and Entrances in Greek Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

VON FRITZ, K. (1962). "Die Gestalt des Eteokles in Aeschylus' Sieben gegen Theben", in: , Antike und moderne Tragdie: neun Abhandlungen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 193-226.

VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, U. (1914). Aischylos: Interpretationen. Berlin: Weidmann.

WEIR SMYTH, H. (1930, rev. 1957). Aeschylus, with an Engl. transl. by , appendix and addendum by H. Lloyd-Jones, 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.

WILKENS, K. (1974). Die Interdependenz zwischen Tragdienstruktur und Theologie bei Aischylos, Bochumer Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 11. Mnchen: Fink.

WOLFF, E. (1958). "Die Entscheidung Des Eteokles in den Sieben Gegen Theben". Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 63, 89-95.

Word count: 5,017 (Excluding bibliography)

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice