Stoic Speech Acts and Moods

Studies in the History of Ancient Linguistics: II.
Stoic and Peripatetic Kinds of Speech Act and the Distinction of Grammatical Moods Author(s): D. M. Schenkeveld Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 37, Fasc. 3/4 (1984), pp. 291-353 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4431355 . Accessed: 13/10/2011 04:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.
http://www.jstor.org
Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXVII,
Fase. 3-4 (1984)
STUDIES
IN THE HISTORY
OF ANCIENT II
LINGUISTICS
STOIC
AND
PERIPATETIC AND THE GRAMMATICAL BY D. M.
KINDS DISTINCTION
OF
SPEECH OF
ACT
MOODS
SCHENKEVELD*
1. This the ancient cordingly
study
of an investigation into the history of of grammatical moods. It is self-evident that actheory will be paid to the Stoic attention on ?e?t? theory is the result
and to non-Stoic on related notions, viz. Aristoa?t?te?? thought tle's s???ata five e?d? ????? of ???e?? and the so-called Peripatetic and other authors in late Antiquity. Ammonius All these theories are concerned with the various ways in which complete and nonare expressed thoughts complex tions and commands. Because of in in speech, such as assertions, ques-
a strong that the theory of moods probability I shall concentrate Stoic on the ?e?t? originated thought A list of terms, definitions and examples, more complete a?t?te??. than those given in previous the studies, will help in reconstructing its authorship remains dubious, original list of these lekta. Although we know that Chrysippus had already occupied himself with matters of non-assertoric lekta. This activity points to a rise of status in comparison with Aristotelian this reason it is non-apophantic logoi but worthwhile why to Stoics these lekta are neither true nor discussing false and why, nevertheless, to a considerable they were studied extent. * The abbreviations used in the text and the notes are explained at the end of the article. logic. For Aristotle no more than this. For mentions a few
292
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT it is right to start with a discusand methodological motives lead
???e??, to an exposition of the so-called e?d? ????? immediately Peripatetic are tapped thereafter. and links with Here, too, more sources rhetoric examined. After the paragraphs on the Stoic lekta a comparison is done Searle's of all these firstly modern
If only for chronological sion of Aristotle's s???ata
reasons,
kinds of speech act will be embarked on. This in the framework of ancient theory, then in terms of comparisons, differences be-
of speech acts. These theory will show the fundamental the second, especially tween the Stoic theory and the two others. In order Stoic tions
a theory of moods and the to find possible links between one o? lekta I shall consider how the lekta come into existence, with movements/inclinain particular, whether they are connected to different matical numerous matical of the psyche and whether these movements vary in proportion of a Stoic theory of gramlekta. Then the testimonies moods are examined. These will turn out to be more than is usually held to be the case. Finally, the possibility a Stoic theory of moods whether comprised gramThe last submoods as well as a specific group of adverbs. is the influence of this theory on the school of
is considered
ject to be discussed Aristarchus. To a lesser treated
or greater extent, the subject of this study has been to name Koller, Egli and Nuchelmans, by Prantl, Steinthal, book on theories of the the foremost authors only1). Nuchelmans* been a great help. has especially proposition 2. When entering upon the matter of ????? as the last ????? of the s???ata mentions ???e??, tragedy {Poet. 1456 b 8 ff.) Aristotle to dismiss them as irrelevant. Then he refers to Protagoras' only stricture mand 9, 53) answer of Homer instead and of a prayer. as having divided that in II. 1, 1 the poet had used a form of comis mentioned elsewhere Protagoras (D.L. ????? into four kinds, prayer, question, These kinds of speech he called p?????e? command2).
1) Prantl I 440 ff. and 550 f.; Steinthal 1317-8 and II 273 f.; Koller 18 ff.; Egli 36 f.; Nuchelmans s.v. kinds of speech. 2) ??????, ???t?s??, ?p????s?? and e?t???. According to others (ibid.) Protagoras distinguished seven kinds. For this matter see K. von Fritz, RE s.v. Protagoras, 919, 19-32; Koller 19.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT With Gudemann
293
?????.
one may think that these and Lucas of Protagoras and systematic activities to scholarly testify passages But Fehof ancient grammar. he was one of the founders and that ling has shown that this credits him with having done too much and as a by-product of his are better that these passages regarded criticism dicated tions of Homer. In this framework Protagoras casually inways of expressing /. /. linked these Aristotle and delivery oneself3). of expression
ways
with the art of elocu-
he does not discuss Therefore, (?p????t???)4). more kinds than ???e?? in his Poetics. He enumerates s???ata viz. e?t???, e???, d????s??5), ape???, had distinguished, Protagoras ?p????s??, and adds at the end ?a? e? t? ???? t????t??. So ???t?s??, these his list is not exhaustive. A few pages later, 1457 a 18 ff., Aristotle gives pt?s?? as one of and ???a etc., and in this the ???? ???e?? next to s???a??, ????a exemplified by two part he also puts ? ?at? ta ?p????t??? pt?s??, used as a an imperative, an indicative verb forms, one the other ?at1 ???t?s??, ?p?ta??? t??a? ? ??d??e pt?s?? ???d?se?; question: ???at?? ?at? ta?ta Aristotle this matter in a systematical However, is not consistent. As we have seen, what and his terminology way, as he calls s???ata ???e?? (Poet. 1456 b 8 ff.) seems to be classified pt?s?? later on. In Topica and Soph. Elench. pt?s?? covers a much wider field, whereas in Soph. Elench. 165 b 27 and 166 b 10 s???ata ???e?? is used in connection with of view. may Language so in De Interpr. 17 a 1 ff., when discussing the logical does Aristotle he In this context status of ?????, meaningful group of words. between ?p?fa?t???? ????? and other ?????, such as distinguishes them as that between the difference between e???, and describes 3) ?. Gudemann, Aristotelespe?? p???t????, Berlin 1934, 335 f.; D. W. Lucas, Aristotle's Poetics, Oxford 1968, 197 f.; D. Fehling, Zwei Untersuchungenzur griechischenSprachphilosophie,RhM 108 (1965), 215. See also the cautious interpretation in J. Vahlen, Beitr?ge zur aristotelischenPoetik, Leipzig 1914 (Hildesheim 1965), 98 f. 4) I. Bywater, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, Oxford 1909, 258. See also Nuchelmans 30-1. 5) Lucas a.l. "d????s?? rather Statement' than 'narration'." 6) Cp. Vahlen /./. and Lucas o.e. 201 f. also be looked gender and diathesis6). at from a different point ta e?d? ?st??. did not go into
294
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT
????? ?? f t? ????e?e?? ? ?e?des?a? ?p???e? and logos which is neither in to a treatment true nor false. The latter group is relegated We have already observed that in his Poetics this rhetoric or poetics. group was mentioned 1418 b 40 ff. Aristotle in connection discusses with elocution. and answers questions but rather briefly. argumentation, All in all, he was not deeply interested Also, in Rhet. in rhetorical
of speech, discussing superficially.
in non-apophantic kinds nor did he offer at any time a definite list of them. When he looked at them from various points of view, and only This who lack commented may explain why those in late in De Interpr. nowhere on the passage for instance, in Poetics, although Ammonius, of interest
Antiquity refer to the passage knows this work7). 3. After Aristotle
aspects of speech are studied to a elocutionary handbooks in rhetorical (see p. 299), and a grammar great extent that the Peripatetics but we have no indication of moods is founded, nor do we hear of their to the latter subject, contributed anything interested being otherwise that after many centuries in a theory Aristotelian of speech. It is only take up this commentators to so in the introductory do chapters of kinds these the theory on the
Corpus as well as others, usually speaks about Hermogenianum. ta p??te ?at? t??? ?e??pat?t????? e?d?, which words imply that the later. old. But this claim we shall examine theory is already Ammonius, Boethius Many several In the following and late of them of these list I enumerate Byzantine are the same also contain all passages down to those in which I have found. commentators in wording information are more Because examples. on the subject of Stoic I shall not discuss important, and indicate where only a
Mostly they subject again. on parts of the Organon. From their commentaries to the Prolegomena and commentaries is transferred
lekta, which for my purposes here. the examples a) Commentaries very short Ammonius Stephanus CAG reference
on De Interpret. Brackets is found.
CAG
IV 5, 2, 9 ff.; 5, 5 ff.; 64, 21 ff. 3 (16, 16 and 19, 11 ff.). XVIII
7) In Aristot. de interp. comm., CAG IV 5, 12.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT Anon. Anon. (a) CAG IV 5 (xxi); xxii. (b) Aristot. opera IV (Busse) 95 b 14 f. and 96 b 37 ff.). Coislinianus Coislinianus Beitr.
295
93 a 20 ff. (cp. z. kl. Philol. 28 ff. 95,
Anon. comm. on Ar. De Int., ed. L. Taran, 1978 (17). Meisenheim-Hain Boethius (ed. Meister) lib. lib. on Anal. b) Comm. CAG Ammonius c) Other comm. I 9, 6 ff.; 35, II 95, 8 ff. 26,
11 ff.;
70,
pr. I IV 6, 2, 2 ff.; on Aristotle
27 ff.
In Physic. II. IV (CAG IX) (91, 17 ff.). Simplicius on Porphyrius' Comm. Isagoge d) Ammonius CAG IV 3, 43, 4 ff. (cp. 11, 6). ZPE 35 (1979), Ein unedierter Kurzkommentar, ed. P. Moraux, III, 11. 90-96.
80,
and Commentaries on Aphthonius' p???????s?ata e) Prolegomena and Hermogenes' and pe?? ?de?? (W = Walz, st?se?? pe?? Rhet. graeci, PS = Prolegomenon Sylloge, ed. Rabe). p???????s?ata 1) on Aphthonius* Anonymus id. Ioannes W II 21, 20 ff. W II 661, 25 ff.
W II 289, 5 ff. Doxopater on Hermogenes' p. st?se?? 2) W VII 3 ff. = PS 186, 17 ff. Anonym. 3) On Hermogenes' Dox. (PS Ioann. The Excerpta Estensia, same five kinds p. ?de?? 421, 22 ff.). ed. H. Rabe,
p??sta?t????, other times monius'
564a. Rh. Mus. 64 (1909), are always mentioned, e??t????, ?p?fa?t????, and ???t????, sometimes very briefly, at e??t??at???? is given. Amof this number a theoretical foundation
of for the explanation discussion may serve as an example on De Interpret. (5, 1 ff.) he first comthe system. In his commentary ments upon the title (pe?? e????e?a?) and then argues as follows: Our a? ???st??a? soul has two faculties, d????e?? and a? ??t??a?, which faculties produce t? ?p?fa?are also called ??e?t??a?. The cognitive t???? e?d?? t?? ?????, the only one which is capable of being true or are summoned false; the other four kinds of speech by the apout towards In those cases the soul reaches functions. petitive
296 another
to the realisation of the person who seems to contribute this being a wish for a ????? or a p????a. If a verbal is asked for, we have to do with ? p?s?at???? ?a? e??response if a thing is required, a second t??at???? ?????, but ?a????e??? desire, distinction then enters: for either is the listener himself is asked tries to ? ???t???? from something superior or the speaker used, ????? his listener. This latter person or inferior to the speaker, and accordingly is used8). for, and obtain
may be either ? e??t???? or ? presented,
p??sta?t???? ????? respectively the exposition runs as follows: ???st??a?-> ????? d????e??\. ??t??a? (??e?t??a?) ????? ??t??s?? pa?* ?te??? ? ? / \
Schematically
????? ?p?fa?t????
?????-?
?. p?s?at???? ?a? e??t??at????
? a?t?? e?e????-*
?. ???t????
? ??e?tt????-? e???
(?. e??t????) ?e??????-> p??sta???
(?. p??sta?t????) and ????? are simple (ap???), self-sufficient (a?t?te?e??) of a complete themselves by expressive thought (ib. 64, 30-2), for as ? ???? a???at?? ?st?? signifies just (?d???s? t?), so do something p?te ???e?; or ?pe??e p??? t??de. ??d?e? d??asta?, a??e f???s?f?sa???, In accordance with but this statement a?t?te??? ?????, For on p. 60, 26 ff. he explains De Interpret. 16 Aristotle, opinion. b 26 (????? d? ?st? f??? s??a?t??? ?at? s??????? ?t?.) and raises the how in the lines "??t??, question ?ta? s? ??? ess? ?t?. (//. 6, 429) and ???t??, forms can be a????? ???? (Od. 22, 208) the vocative called ???t???? ?????, although consisting of one word (d???a). His elsewhere ??d?e? Ammonius d??asta? seems would to retract be an this All these
8) Cp. Nuchelmans 97 f.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT solution here is that in
297
and may ??????s??, more must contain
consist
is called ???s??, or the address general of one word, but that the ???t???? ????? such as ? ???a? ?t?e?d?, words, ??????e???,
??????d?, ???a ??d?? '??a??? ?????da???? (//. 3, 182) and ? ??st?? that at 44, 2 ff. he admits of the possibility However, (Od. 3, 79)9). a verb is a ???t???? e?d?? ?????, and one ????a, or its case, without Then he quotes again //. to elicit a response. is, he adds, sufficient 3, 182, ("??t??). From a line with more than one d???a10), but not e.g. //. 6, 429
we must conof Aristotelian these explanations passages to an Aristotelian wavers between that Ammonius clude adhering this view considerably (64, 32 ff. position (60, 26) and extending and 44, anyone moods. else 2 ff.)11). It may this connects be added with that neither Ammonius nor system the theory of grammatical
Nuchelmans e?d? ?????
97 rightly views the system of the five Peripatetic between distinction of Aristotle's "as an elaboration logos
apophantikos and prayer in De int. 17 a 1", but seems to suggest that we it is an old one (see also note 21). As has been stated before, of Amthe vague term ?? ?e??pat?t???? have no indications, except this monius c.s., that these scholars had already early on formulated On the contrary, system. much later times. I believe that its origin is to be found in
let me point out that no traces of this system are found Firstly, it as a wellin Alexander Ammonius of Aphrodisias. proposed on Aristotle's definiin his commentary known Peripatetic system de ?st? syllogism (Prior Analytics 24 b 18, s??????s??? ?? ? te???t?? t???? ete??? t? t?? ?e?????? ?? a?????? s???a??e? ????? Ammonius' comments t? ta?ta e??a?). When comparing (26, 28 ff.) tion of the with ander those says of Alexander that not is posited; (CAG II 1 17, 4 ff.) we observe that Alexall ????? are meant but only those in which thus: t? he ends by explaining this restriction
something
9) Although Ammonius does not quote these lines in full, I take it that he expects us to complete them. They are well-known cases of lines with vocatives only. 10) For ???a? etc. are d???a ?p??et??, adjectives not being recognized by grammarians as a separate word-class. 11) Cp. Nuchelmans 98.
298 ?a? ?? t?
e??? t??eta? ? ?? t? e?t??? ? ?? t? ???se?; Ammonius, has more to add: e?ta??a ??? t? ?e? ????? however, ?? ????? pa?e???a ????s? ??pta? (...)? ta d? ???? ?? d?af??a?, t? ?e? ?? ? te???t?? a?t?? ap? t?? ????? ?????, ???? t?? ???t???? ? t?? e??t???? ?a? t?? ????? e?te p??te a?t??? ????e? ???e?? e?te d??a* t? ?a? t??eta( His final words are almost the same as t?? ?? e??? ? ?? ???se?;12). Alexander's and point to a certain d?pendance, but the remark on ap???, 5 or 10 kinds kinds his introduction no similar Another between of speech is his own contribution. I may add that in 3 ff.) Ammonius had already spoken of the five (2, of Peripatetics, in his introduction but that Alexander offers comment13). point to be made in this connection concerns the relation
the two d????e?? t?? ????? and the five e?d? ?????. In itself a distinction of several in common d????e?? t?? ????? is already took over this and the Neoplatonists, as well as others, Aristotle, idea. G??st??a? and ??t??a? (??e?t??a?) d????e?? are then distinthat but it is not before Ammonius guished besides other faculties, we find this exclusive restriction to these two faculties. Proclus often uses a distinction between ???st???? publicam 21, 20 (t?? ea?t?? te?e??t?ta t?? ??t????), but in his works I have between of the these Before e.g. in his In rem ?a? t?? d?tt??, t?? te ???st???? not found the same distinction and ??t????,
two dynameis of the soul. we find it in Ammonius' there is no theory commentaries, and of the soul, viz. intellectual existence of two faculties I am inclined of speech. Therefore, To of his immediate forerunners. to Ammonius himself seems to be
vitad, which produce five kinds to ascribe this theory to one ascribe the origin of this theory
12) 'Here the word ????? is used generically, and the next words are employed as differentiae; thus the words ?? f te?. in order to separate this logos (viz. the apophantikoslogos) from the other, such as the kletikosor the euktikos, in short from all the others whether you wish to say they are five or ten. For, what does one posit in a prayer or in an address?' 13) Also in his commentary on Topics 100 a 25, the definition of syllogism again, Alexander has no reference to the system of five kinds, but only mentions various meanings of the word ????? (CAG II 2, 7, 10 ff.) (Communication of J. Mansfeld).?The sequence of e???, e?t??? and ???s?? may have similarities with the Peripatetic system but is no proof for its existence at the time of Alexander. A similarly vague trias is found in Augustinus De dial?ctica, ed. J. Pinborg, Dordrecht 1975, ch. 2.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT out of the question as being self-evident because and of the way common in which he speaks a rhetorical
299 about it
origin already made between d????e?? the view. Ioannes had and ??t??a? precludes ???st???? Doxopater seen with more insight the philosophical of the provenance already when he compared the five ???a? t?? ????? of the system, six ?d?a? of Hermogenes16). with the Another arguphilosophers ment much for rejecting a rhetorical origin more collections developed is found of kindred in the presence distinctions of witty of in
At any rate, G. Lehnert is wrong for the distinction for this system15),
knowledge14). in assuming
writings. sayings sources, among (dicta) Quintilian which figurae mentis, (...) in quas nonnulli diviserunt species dictorum. Nam et interrogamus et dubitamus et adfirmamus et minamur et optamus; quaedam ut miserantes, quaedam ut irascentes dicimus (6, 3, 70). We find several similarities with the five Peripatetic species, but minamur, show that there is no longer a mirantes, and irascentes in particular, concern with expressing a thought into a form, but with the ways of uttering these forms, i.e. elocutionary is foremost. concern Also when we look at the theory of s???ata d?a???a? in Greek and Latin we can but still more divergencies17). And o? species orationis and schemata dianoeas, the headings finally, and Isidorus combine both lists in a confusing Apuleius way18). The origin of this rhetorical Poet. system may be found in Aristotle's 1456 b 8 ff. and similar texts, but this subject does not concern us under here19). find some similarities
rhetorical
For instance, in his treatment of their a number catalogues
14) Boethius II 95, 8 ff. maintains that there are many species orationis and various systems of partition but that the Peripatetic system covers all kinds. Ammonius In de interp. 65, 26 ff. leaves it to the students of other arts to decide whether the five kinds suffice or must be added to. Cp. Nuchelmans 128 f. 15) Eine rhetorische(Quelle f?r Boethius' Commentarezu Aristoteles3pe?? e????e?a?, Philol. 59 (1900), 574-7. 16) In Hermogenis de ideis, Prol. Syll. 421, 22 ff. 17) See J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik, Hdb. Altw. 2, 3, M?nchen 1974, 275 ff. 18) Apuleius Peri hermeneias,in OperaIII, ed. P. Thomas (BT), 176; Isidorus De rhetorica,in Rhet. lat. min., ed. C. Halm, Leipzig 1863 (Frankfurt am Main 1964), 519, 16-520, 5. 19) Cp. Martin 270 ff. As we shall see (? 5), Stoic influence too must be taken into account.
300 There theory
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT another connection between the rhetorical is, however, and the Peripatetic system of speech acts. This becomes apwhen this system is discussed in prolegomena to or commenIn the Byzantine rhetorical one of which "war groups,
parent taries on the Corpus Hermogenianum20). several Prolegomena Hunger recognizes eher von einem
Tenor beherrscht'\ The introducphilosophischen tion of this group he attributes to the intertwinement of philosophy in the fourth and fifth centuries. He supposes and rhetoric the of Porphyrius to have been an attractive model to these ??sa???? Prolegomena21). the Peripatetic than Hunger*s system views of five speech are right, but it must be added that acts stems from a period later about 450 A.D. probably
Porphyrius' (?232-305), So far, our conclusions must be that at the time of Aristotle some of speech acts and that attention had been paid to a classification this classification of figures sayings. troduced to definite matical 4. In
may have helped the birth of the rhetorical theory a subcategory which also influenced of witty of thought, later a new system of e?d? ????? is incenturies Many in the commentaries whence it is transferred on Aristotle, handbooks these the Byzantine period. any Finally, and the system of gramclassifications to be absent. Aristotle and Ammonius the Stoic of
rhetorical moods the
link between appears
theory Interpr. Ammonius ????? a????a,
between period of lekta has come into t??
says, de e??t????
In his commentary on De existence. ?a???s? de o? St????? t?? ?e? ?p?fa?t???? ??at????, t?? p??te d? ???t???? p??s-
t??t??? ?te?a ????? e?d? ?t?.22) a???e?t????, p??st????te? Thus to him the Peripatetic five kinds have a chronological priority. This claim is wrong, because we do not meet with clear statements about the Peripatetic kinds before the 5th cent. A.D. whereas a
20) This Corpus, consisting of Aphthonius' p???????s?ata, Hermogenes' p. e???se??, p. st?se??, p. ?de?? and p. ?e??d?? de???t?t??, was canonized in the 5/6th cent. A.D. See H. Hunger, Die hochsprachl.profane Lit. der Byzant., Hdb. Altw. 5, 1, M?nchen 1978, 77. 21) o.e. 86 f. 22) CAG IV 5, 2, 26 ff. (SVF 2, 188). 'The Stoics call the apophantikoslogos axioma, ..., thus adding five more kinds of speech to those mentioned.' This claim has always been accepted from Lersch to H?rtung 302.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT Stoic
301
if not in the third century at least list was in existence, B.C., in the first century B.C. This terminus ante quern is indicated by the so-called Fragment of In his exposition of Stoic philosophy Diodes. Laertius, Diogenes from 7, 49 onwards, quotes from Diodes' Summary of the philosophers, a fragment which continues to par. 8223). This Diodes probably lived in the first cent. B.C. or somewhat In this fragment earlier24). the lekta are discussed Diodes. In par. 63 Diodes starts the exposition of the Stoic theory on ? ?a? t?? s??a????e??? t?? p?a???t?? t?p??. To this locus belong pe?? as 'the contents the lekta. Provisionally, lekta can be defined of thought defective The Stoa distinguished between and a????a, lekta, of which ?at??????a runs parallel This distinction are examples. to that respectively, and whole sentences. between of sentences Under parts complete and therefore lekta come independent a????ata, (a?t?te??) From par. 68 ?a? p?s?ata e??t??ata s??????s???, (par. 63 infine). it appears that a????ata are either ?p?a (simple, or ??? atomic), ?p?a (complex, to the latter group belong the wellmolecular)25); known discussion Stoic such as ?? ??e?a est??, f?? ?st??. But a propositions of these is not apposite here and I return to the nonin ?? 65-8. There Diodes informs us first lekta, treated an axioma is, then about e??t??a that erotema, pusma etc. are axiomata have these etc. At the end of this neither true The nor false, combination to be expressed and complete in words'. and a list is given; this list, therefore, predates
complex about what part whereas
it is said
only of all this proves that ?? 65-8 deal with the simple and complete lekta. One item in this group, a more extensive axioma, receives We remember treatment later on, for it is fit for logical analysis. of being true or false is identical that the distinction to that of (De Inter pr. 17 a 1 ff.), the Aristotelian ????? is different see later on (? 9). Aristotle but we should from the Stoic keep ?e?t??, in mind that as we shall
characteristics.
23) F. H. Sandbach, Phantasia Kataleptike, 30 in Long (1971) doubts that this fragment continues after ? 49, but see e.g. Egli 7 ff. 24) H. D?rrie, dkP s.o. (10). 25) Therefore s??????s??? is not discussed in parr. 66-8, although one would expect so from ? 63. The terms 'atomic/molecular' in B. Mates, Stoic Logic, Calif. Pubi. Philos. 26, 1953 (21961), 16.
302
Apart from axioma, the list of autotele lekta in par. 66 f. comprises p?s?a, ?e?t?? p??sta?t????, ???????, ??at????, eight kinds (e??t??a, and p????a d????? ?????at?). Each kind ?p??et????, p??sa???e?t????, but the definitions is defined and exemplified and examples of ?e?due to a lacuna. At the end t?? ??????? and ?p??et???? are missing t? p????a, so giving us a Diocles adds a ninth kind, ?pap???t???? lekta. However, other sources mention kinds of complete list often lists which Not by von all of these to a greater or lesser extent from that of Diocles. or else they are quoted only partially, are quoted, In order to reconstruct Arnim the (SVF 2, nrs. 186-92). list I shall therefore first tabulate here the texts which I indiffer 1: Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum 7, 65-8, ed. made by Egli 7 (SVF corrections
original tend to use: Text (T)
Long (OCT), together with some 2, 186). ? 2: Sextus Adv. mathem. 8, 70-4 (=Adv. dogm. 2), Empiricus edd. Mutschmann-Mau-Janacek (BT) (SVF 2, 187). ? 3: Ammonius In Aristotelis De Interpretatione commentarius, ed. Busse CAG IV 5 2,9-3,6 3, 1-2, SVF 2, (from 2, 26 on omitting 188). ? 4: Anonymus Coislinianus 9 (not in SVF)26). 3-xxiii, ? 5: Anonymus Coislinianus (a), ed. Busse CAG IV 5 xxii,
(b) in Aristotelis Opera IV Scholia, ed. a 21 ff.27) (not in SVF). Berlin 1836, 93 Brandis, in Prolegom. Sylloge, ? 6: Prolegomena in Hermogenis ?e?? st?se?? Rhet. gr. XIV, ed. Rabe, 1934, nr. 13, Leipzig = Waltz, Rhet. gr. VII, 1, 3-5 (not in SVF). ( ? 7: Scholia in Aphthonium in Rhet. gr., ed. Waltz, 26 (not in SVF)28). 25-662, Apart from these texts I use other passages, which, 186, 17-188, 661, not ex5
II (1832), although
26) According to Busse xx this text dates from after Philoponus (s. VII A.D.). 27) According to Busse xix the commentary in this codex Coisl. 160, f. 1-96 is also found in cod. Laur. 72, 1 f. 123 r. ?149 r. (from which text 4 is taken), and in other MSS. However, ? 4, 11. 20-36 are not found in ? 5, and other small differences occur. Therefore, I have made two items, 4 and 5. 28) SVF 2, 189-91 are omitted here; they are very short and add nothing substantial, except that nr. 189 (Ammonius In Arist. Anal. pr., ed. Wallies, CAG IV 6, 2, 3 ff.) maintains that the Stoics had eleven kinds.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT the Stoa, contain relevant information.
303 These
plicitly are: ?
mentioning
in Rhet. gr., ed. L. Spengel, Progymnasmata, chen 1855), II 87, 13-90, 1729) (not in SVF). ? 9: Dionysius De compos, verb., edd. of Halicarnassus c. 8, 1 p. 32, 6-13 (not in SVF)30). Radermacher (BT), 8: Theon ? 10: Philo 4 (SVF
(M?nUsener-
in Opera, ed. Wendland, De agricult. 139-40, 2, 122, 18-123, 2, 182)31)? In Aristotelis Categor?as comment., ed. Kalbfleisch, Til: Simplicius = SVF 2, CAG VIII, 460, 6-28 from 1. 20 onwards 192). The texts 1-9 1 shall first use to put the information concerning the number and names of the kinds nr. 0 contains scheme (I). Column this order my aim was so to position choosing of question that its three parallels in the other together. Commentary on scheme I: of speech into the following the five Peripatetic kinds. In the Peripatetic logos columns are placed
1. According to e.g. Ammonius (T 3) the Stoic names differed from Peripatetic ones, viz. a????a for ????? ?p?fa?t????, ??at???? for ?. e??t????, p??sa???e?t???? for ?. ???t????. From ? 2 (?a? ?p?fa?t??a (se. ?a???s?) ape? ap?fa????e??? fa?e?) a good case can be made for the thesis that t? ?p?fa?t???? ?e?t?? was the first Stoic kind, which was to be equated with a????a ap????. See below. 2. The Stoic names do not differ much, (e.g. ?p-/d?ap???t????), the greatest variation occurs between p???? ? a????a (? 2), d????? ?????at? (? 1, 3-5) and p???? t? t?? ?p?f. (? 8). Diodes' definition (? 1) d t?? ??f??a? ???? ?????at???? pa?? t???? ?????? p?e??as??? ? p???? shows the close relationship between d??????????at? and p???? ? a????a/p???? t? t?? ?p?f. 3. Immediately after species 11 I put in nr. 11a t? ?a??ast????. ? 4 and 5 stand alone in splitting up t? d????? ?????at? and t? ?a??ast????, whereas ? 6 and 7 give t? ?a??. only but add examples which elsewhere illustrate t? d?. ??. Diocles' definition, again, and his examples show why this division was possible. Egli 36 wrongly reports ? 5 as ranking t? d?. ??., ?a??. and ?f????at???? together as one kind. Steinthal's report (I 318) is also wrong.
29) Aelius Theon of Alexandria probably lived in the first cent. A.D. See W. Stegemann, RE VA 2037 ff. and H. Gartner, dkP 5,713. According to G. Reichel, Quaest.progymn. (Leipzig 1909), 23 ff. Theon was a Stoic, but with Stegemann and G?rtner it is better to maintain that his work contains many Stoic elements. This text of Theon is not mentioned at all in the usual literature. 30) Used by Nuchelmans and Koller only. 31) Cp. Decongr. erud. gratia 146 ff. (Opera 3, 102, 15 ff. = SVF 2, 99), especially t? ?p?fa?t????, t? e??t??a, t? p?s?a, t? p??sta?t????, t? e??t????, t? ??at????;
304
^?< r~Z < C/3
??
< ?* e ??
g. ?
il so *3
3 t
? d. 3
- J hq
?-3 o 2
305
4. Species 12a (?f????at???? c.q. d?asaf?t????) looks like a specification of a????a. To support this one can adduce the examples in which the speaker answers a question with a statement (?f??.), which is a clarification at the same time (d?asaf.). Theon. 89, 29-90, 17 illustrates his eleventh type (=12b p??sd?a?e?.) by a dialogue between one person asking and one answering. He ends with: t?? a?t?? t??p?? d?e?e?e?s??e?a e??t??te? te ?a? ?p???????e??? ?at? t?? d?a?e?t???? ?????. Thus 12b is a combination of types 1 and 6. 5. Nr. 8 (???t????) is divided into ?p- and ?at???t???? in ? 4 and 5, and also by Simplicius (T 11). See also comm. 9. 6. Common to all texts except ? 2 and 9 is the division of questions into three species, e??t??a, p?s?a and t? ?pap???t???? (for the abbreviation of ? 3 (Ammonius) see p. 309. To an ???t??a (Yes-or-no question, Entscheidungsfrage, Egli 19) one answers with ?a?, ???? or a gesture (T 4-7, cp. SVF 2, 190), whereas a p?s?a (wh-question, Bestimmungsfrage) needs a much longer answer32). To ?pap???t???? is explained as a self-question (T 4-8). Ammonius (T 3) stands alone in his explanation, ta?t?? d? t? ???t??at??? p??? ?t? p??t???s? t?? p??fas?? t?? e??t?se??33). 7. The list of ? 2 (Sextus) is the shortest of all, and seems, moreover, to have one kind repeated (?p?fa?t??? and a????ata, but see ? 6, and distinguishes between ??at??? (curse, imprecation) and e??t??? (prayer). This distinction is not found again except in a passage from Philo (see note 31), but we hear from e.g. Ammonius that the Stoics used ??at???? instead of e??t????. For these reasons I do not take Sextus' distinction as original. The poets, examples but some recur, for the various lekta are mostly many quotations times the from same
quotations
occur; prose-quotations as scheme II shows34).
Commentary
on scheme
II:
8. ? 4 and 5, which are almost identical, do not have an example of the apophantikos logos here, but in ? 4, p. xxi a discussion of this kind had come up earlier, and the two examples of ? 3, coupled with Eurip. Or. 1155, were given. This text (as well as ? 5) is structured by the sequence of question and answer, the ????? p?s?at???? requires a longer answer, which is called af????at??? ?p????s??, and exemplified by Od. 9, 39. Later on (xxiii) the author remarks again on ?f??. e?d?? and the same line is quoted. 32) Cp. Ammonius gramm. de adf voc. diff., ed. Nickau, gl. 188: ?at? de t??? f???s?f??? ???t?s?? ?st? f??s?? s????????? ?p????s?? ??t??sa ???? ?a?, ??, a?ta? ??? a? p??te ap?f?se?? s???????a? ?a????ta?. ??f??????, saf??, ?d???? (...). pe?s?? d? ?st? ?????p??? ?? ??? est? s????????? ?p?????es?a?, ???? ... p ? e?? This remark on the five possible answers is found again in similar '??d??????; collections and in Eustathius but not outside this group. 33) '(A self-question) is identical to a question except that it sets out the motive of the question'. 34) Text 9 does not offer examples, ? 8 gives variations on Thuc. Hist. 2, 2, 1 (??d?e? ????? p?e???? ?t?.) in order to show how to vary t?? d????se??(87, 20).
306
h-gj. < ?/1 d
Ci en ^ d
m .22 c < -f CM 00 00 ? Sa? ? S o ?S S2?
^ .2 ??; c < U
u IO ???? c ^
s? < ? ft- (? g =* 00 S(?) CM -F
i S 3 g
CM o o o CM CO
.3 'M
Is ?:: ?t?r?)
Seo CM
1 8<S co
? o ti -?
8 cm a-
307
'3
-al
w > E i -3 g E e* co co ? ?4? ~* co co 3*H -CM "? *-<*?" ?; ^8 co co ^h CO j3 S; ?S il
S.
?.
IO . 2 il
-? ? C vi?3*-f Cui > ^ Vi? Vi? *& 2 o S ^ 3^ ?^ >^ ?-"'S Vi? OJ3**3 -? ? O ** S >
Ot-O ?P*
R co
*'9 Q ?,
3 S." S Si?? 2 * !, ^ o >? *S 3
? g
"S ? 8 * -S 2 ?4 ?*? ?meo 8 io co y^ ?00?"8
.s -4 "' W CM
-o ?? > Vi? *~
I <x> 2.5
> 5 2 J" o s
8 -il ?CM 2 ^ *? ?O
308
9. Simplicius (Til) reports criticisms of Nicostratus35) on Aristotle De Interpr. 17 a 1. Nicostratus uses Stoic material but his distinctions do not all need to be Stoic, for in his polemics he needs a contrast between ???t???? and ?p???t???? ????? as well as between ?a??ast???? and ?e?t???? ?????. Egli 36 wrongly says "In SVF 192 ( - second half of ? 11) ist die Gattung der psektika wohl interpoliert", but is right in not admitting this type into the Stoic list. 10. Ammonius' example for t? ???et???? e?d?? (? 3) reminds one of Euclides Elementa 1, p. 10 Heiberg ?st? ? d??e?sa e??e?a pepe?as???? ? AB. ? 4, however, says ???et?????? t?? e??es??fas?? ?? ?e???t?a? for which definition see e.g. Proclus in Euclidis primum elementorum librum commentarius.ed. Friedlein, 203, 7, ? d? ???es?? a?t? ?a?' a?t? t? ded?????? ?p?d?a?a???sa p??e?t?ep??e?t? ??t?se?56). Probably ? 4 also means to refer to an example beginning with ?st? ? d??e?sa ?t?., not to the very definition. 11. As to the examples of t? ?p??et???? cp. Aristarchus of Samos De magn. ... lunae, ed. Heath, hyp. 2 t?? ??? s??e??? te ?a? ???t??? ????? e?e?? p??? t?? t?? se????? sfa??a?, Theon Smymaeus, ed. Hiller, 120, Ptolemaeus Syntaxis mathem., ed. Heiberg, I 240, and Proclus Hypotyp. astronom.posit., ed. Manitius, 26, 26. 12. The examples of Theon (? 8) are variations of Thuc. Hist. 2,2,1 (the capture of Plataeae). Of these the example for e??t??a is of interest (Is it true that the Thebans ...? ?a? ??t?? ???t??at????ta ?et? ta?ta d?e?e?s??e?a), and also that for p?s?a (What kind of men were the Thebans, who ... ? ?a? ta ???p? p???a???e??? ?p??s??e?). He refrains from exemplifying ?pap???s?? by a variation of the basic text, because e??t??a and ?pap???s?? do not differ ?at? t?? p??f????, the only difference being between a real question and a self-question. The latter he demonstrates by Menander Sentent. 53. His variation for ?p??et???? is: '?p????e?a ???, that men of Thebes, ...'; for p???? t? t?? ?p?fa??es?a?: ?e????? ?? ????e p?a???t?? a?t?a ?????e? ????a???? ... T??a??? e?????ta?a? af????. T??a??? ?a? ??d?e? ?t?. ... ?a? ??t? ta ???p? t?? d????se?? s??????e?. For (p??s)d?a??????? ?p?fa??es?a? see comm. nr. 4. 13. Here I cannot resist quoting William van Moerbeeke's translation for the example of ?pap???t???? (???? p??est?; t? p?t* ?pa??e??? a?a;), viz. Deus adest, quid igitur angelorum;(Corp. Lat. Comm. in Aristot. graec. II (1961) 4, 54). beforegoing surveys have shown the close relationship in difthe texts 1-9, and in the commentary most difficulties have been explained ferences away. We have also seen that the kinds 11a, 12a and b are later developments. Yet some discrepantween cies still exist, viz. Diocles (Tl) does not list t? ???et????, which oc? 3-5, and ? 3 (Ammonius) curs in conflicts with his remark elsewhere that there are eleven kinds (In Anal, prior. 2, 3 ff.) (see note 28). 35) On Nicostratus (s. II A.D.) see J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, Ithaca 1977, 233-6 and Frede 42 f. 36) G. Marrow, A Commentaryon the First Book of Euclid's Elements, Princeton 1970, translates: "the exposition takes separately what is given and prepares it in advance for use in the investigation". 5. The
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT To take this latter at least
309
to notice that at one case first, it is important After his exposition ? 3 is an abbreviated of version. point to the Stoic additions. the Peripatetic comes five kinds Ammonius The first four (???t????, ???et????, ?p??et???? and t? d????? ?????at?) because they are indicative of under ????? ?p?fa?t???? t? ?pap???t???? to ????? e??and falseness, whereas belongs the swearing Now, he exemplifies t??at????. type by Gst? ??? t?de this kind to the ?a?a (Od. 5, 184) but in his proof for reducing are classified truth t?? ?e??? t? ?a?t???a apophantic logos he says: t?? ?e? ???t???? Yet Od. 5, 184-187 does not contain p?e???sa?t?? t?? ap?f??se??. a divine name used in witness which can be omitted. Ammonius' in ? 4, ?? does apply to the third quotation however, explanation, ?a ???' ... ??t? d?at???? (Od. 20, 339), in which text the first examtext looks like an abThus Ammonius' ple is that of Ammonius. breviated and here may, version. t? ?p??et???? we do not find an explanation and t? ???et???? can be reduced to the apophantic Furthermore, perhaps of abbreviation37); this task to avoid embarrassment an indication how type, he
too we have
have skipped however, From these considerations ? 3). ing that the bulk of poetical in Ammonius' mind text too. The
(cp. I draw two conclusions, the first bein ? 4 and 5 was present quotations second conclusion is bolder, but to my that Ammonius'
in considering we are justified the possibility source also had t? p?s?at???? An additional e?d??.
conclusion
for this argument is that in this way we can reconcile Ammonius' conflicton the number of Stoic kinds of speech38). ing statements As to the absence of t? ???et???? from Diocles' list, with Egli 36 one may explain it as due to a lacuna in the text. He inserts ?a? t? ???et???? contained (? 66), and thinks that the lacuna in ? 67 an example of this type too. The result of this insertion with that of t? p?s?at???? text (T3) e?d?? in Ammonius' coupled would be a welcome and complete between both lists. agreement However, development division of t? ?p??et???? it is equally to view t? ???et???? as a later possible from a general which led to a type of supposition, into two kinds. Both types are exampled after ?p??et????
37) Cp. J. Freudenthal, RE s.v. Ammonios (15), col. 1864. 38) In de interpret.5, 10 he says t?? p?s?at???? ?a? e??t??at???? ?????; there the adjectives indicate the same kind, and 199, 19 ff. he explains the difference between ? d?a?e?t??? ???t?s?? and ? p?s?at??? ???t?s??.
310
and in view of the by mathematico-astronomical quotations, relative lack of interest in mathematics on the part of the Old Stoa, with the later tendency to institute new types (??at???? together I prefer the alternative solution /e??t????, ?a??ast????/?e?t????), and do not assume that t? ???et???? has been omitted39). Of course, the division between and p?s?a is old and e??t??a as the titles of Chrysippus' works already original, testify, e.g. ?a? pe?se?? (D.L. 7, 191). The Stoics seem ?p?t??? pe?? e??t?se?? to have been the first to make this distinction between yes-or-no and wh-questions. In Topics 158 a 14 ff. Aristotle explicitquestions from being a excludes such as t? ?st?? ?????p??;, wh-questions, ly of a simple 'yes' or d?a?e?t??? p??tas?? because they do not admit else in his works p?s?a, or a 'no', but neither here nor anywhere similar term, is introduced considerations as a different that kind the from yes-or-no list of questions40). From these Stoic 1. kinds ?e?t??
I conclude
standard
of speech acts runs as follows (the order is debatable): 3. p?s?a, 4. ?. or a????a, 2. e??t??a, ?p?fa?t???? 5. ?. p??sta?t????, 6, ?. ???????, 7. ?. ??at????, 8. ?. ?pap???t????, 9. ?. ?p??et????, 10. ?. d????? ?????at?. p??sa???e?t????, Egli's (36) in that ?. ???et???? is omitted, and it differs also from that of Nuchelmans (67) by virtue of the omission of ?. d?asaf?t???? and by the additional same omission nr. 4)41). (cp. commentary In agreement with Stoic practice the examples are mostly taken This list differs from from poetry, and the prose illustrations kind, ??e?a est??, ???? pe??pate?, a?? ?e for The quotations from Demosthenes all start with the later intrusions. They are of the well-known Stoic ??e?a est??; p?? ???e? ????; t? ?p??et???? in ? 4-6 are
e?, just as the conjunction are nonof the Iliad (2, 123) in ? 7. All these quotations example we at home here. Probably not originally simple lekta, and therefore
39) This solution, too, is problematic because, as we shall see in par. 8, Posidonius perhaps made the division between the two kinds (a), and Diocles refers several times to Posidonius (b). Accordingly my solution leaves unexplained why Diocles did not include ???et???? in his list. However, Egli 12 f. convincingly shows that the whole Fragmentof Diocles is based on different sources, among which the source of parr. 63 ff. is a work of Krinis, not of Posidonius. 40) Cp. Eudemus of Rhodes fr. 25 W. and Wehrli's comments, 85. 41) Prantl 441 f. classifies ?a??ast???? as a separate type, but see comm. nr. 3.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT are dealing with from rhetorical influence. Instit. The same
311
will be true for the 542). Finally, and ???et????
Xenophon's quotations the mathematico-astronomical indicate There, whole 6. used the
Cyri in ? 4 and of ?p??et???? examples
as we will see par. 8. a possible author for this distinction, of the of the authorship the problem too, I shall discuss list. that the Stoics with great hesitation, of as a generic indication a?t?te??? act, in the same way as Ammonius
It may be argued, the term d?af??a? various
though ?e?t??
kinds of speech is perhaps found in Philo De of e?d? ?????. This designation speaks 189 (? 10) and Sextus (? 2). Philo somewhat deprecatingly agrie. t?? ?e? as???t?? ta ?e? lists several Stoic distinctions, including ?a? p?s?ata, t??e?a, ta d' ate??. ?a? t?? te?e??? ta ?e? e??t??ata ??at??? t??t?? te a? ?a? ?????? ?a? ?sa? a??a? t?? ?at' st???e??ses?? a?a???f??ta? ('handbooks') Sextus' words p??? p???? a d?a?e?t????? e??? est?? ??????e?? a????ata. ??a??? ??s?? ?? t??? ?e?t??? d?af???? (? 2, ? 74) point, I think, in the de a?t?te??? direction. same in ? 71 (t?? p?e???? Therefore, (t??p???) e?d?? ?? ta?? pe?? ta d? d?af??a?,
e??a? fas?) I prefer Bekker's fas? proposal (Kochalsky) (d?af???? >. is Pap. Here. 307 (SVF 2, A final argument for this designation a Chrysippean text43), where at col. 8, 1. 15 ff. 298a) containing (SVF 105, 11 ff.) we read d?t?? d? ?a? t???t?? ?at? t? ?s??ta? a? d?af??a? a?t??. However, in a non-technical sense in all three texts. Our contrast main with texts ?e?t? testify esta? ?p???te?? d?af??? may be used ?e?t??
e???p?.
in to the generic name of ?e?t? a?t?te?? These complete lekta are differentiated
of an adjective by the addition etc.), as is done e.g. (p??sa???e?t???? in ? 2, ?? 71-2, the exception there being p?s?ata. Sextus by Diocles names starts with three substantival e??t??a, (a????a, and continues se. ?e?t?? etc. With this with p??sta?t???? p?s?a) 42) Although according to K. M?nscher, Xenophoni.d. griech.-r?m. Lit., Leipzig 1920, 55 "die Stoa im ganzen X. hoch einsch?tzte". But see G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in Rome, Princeton 1972, 554 and 616. Misunderstanding of ?p??et???? as 'hypothetical, conditional' probably caused the intrusion of examples introduced by t?. H?rtung 303 follows this error. 43) See ? 8.
312 method
of distinction we can understand that Sextus (T 2, ? 71) of ?p?fa?t???, and uses (? 73) the word a????a for the same speaks one may consider the assertorie statement both as an type. Indeed, assertion and as a statement which is (ape? ap?fa????e??? fa?e?) either true or false (a????a)44). The same method of looking at a???in two ways occurs in the definitions of Diocles (D.L. 7, 65)45). ?a All these lekta are self-sufficient, unlike deficient lekta such as we can accept the selfG??fe? (7, 63). By means of this contrast sufficiency themselves answer, (?p?fa?t?? However, of questions, for, although are complete. Axiomata, they and are, therefore, complete ds?? ?f' ?a?t?, Chrysippus' when we consider some in an answer, requiring do not require an however, as well as independent definition in D.L. for the 7, 63)46). lekta pro-
must ask why e.g. sagoreutikon, horkikon and homoion is a lekton autoteles, and ??d?ste, ??a? a?d??? ????e???? ?t?e?d? becomes more intricate when we take ???fe? is not. The problem into account Diocles' definitions. These have ?st? p????a d ?????te? p??st?ss??e? a?. From Diocles' d e? ????? t??, p??sa???e??? p????a survey of inlekta in ? 64 it appears that pragma is identical with, or at complete least correlate to, verb forms, such as pe??pate?. For the word is ussta?t???? with ?at??????a and not with ed only in connection (predicate) of from this interpretation pt?s?? ???? (subject). Accordingly of comwe run into difficulties when dealing with examples pragma that lekta and pragmata and meanings topos of the incorporeals (as??ata) This topos is the pendant to of the t?p?? pe?? f????, (s??a????e?a). I have spoken which the corporeal words (?????) belong. Therefore, of correspondence, not identity, between lekta and complete belong to the plete lekta without any verb form at all. To find a solution we must first remember of p??or p??sa???e?t???? ?st? the form
examples axiomati, we
44) Contra Egli 36. 45) For the deletion there of ? ?atafa?t?? and ? ??ete?s?a? see Nuchelmans 59, Egli 36 and Frede 33 ff. 46) In principle Frede 36 is right in translating "welches, so weit es an ihm liegt, ausgesagt werden kann", and in connecting the restriction ?crov?f* ?a?t? with the presence or absence of external circumstances, such as the possibility of deixis. Nevertheless, the usual translation ('independent, by itself) expresses the same idea. See also Nuchelmans 59 and Kerferd 266.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT sentences. the
313
In concentrating Stoics avoided on the field of meanings of being external and created guided by signs only, pitfall for themselves. in abstracting elbow-room For instance, from the an imperative words they could connect form with difphysical ferent lekta. I return now to the problem o? lekta without correspondverb forms, which, are defined nevertheless, by means of the ing word pragma. Nuchelmans?who, as far as I can see, is the only scholar to discuss this a gradual assuming "an action means thought" without matter?explains (64 ff.) in the use o? pragma. transition but later difficulty by At first this word also "a thing In its first the
or passion thought" to verbal restriction for the neutral from
usage "pragma stands viewed in abstraction
action/passion. action or passion of the verb, the different speech acts in which it can
to the inplay a role" (64), and thus, we may add, it is correlate In the second meaning finitive. the connection with the verbal action is left aside and pragma has the sense of what is merely thought (67). In particular Nuchelmans maintains that "when D.L. VII, 67 son of Atreus, lord honoured says that an address such as "Most of the warriors, is a pragma of such a kind that if a Agamemnon" this must therefore mean person says it, he will address somebody, in the speech act of adthat it is a thought which a person expresses or that it is that which a person means when dressing somebody, he addresses However, Nuchelmans somebody I have in those the words" impression the possibility (67). that in the latter case
has overlooked
of a closer
link between
*a thing thought' of the various speech acts. and the action/passion if in the definition d e? ????? of e.g. p??sa???e?t???? For, (p????a that is merely t??, p??sa???e??? a?) pragma means only Something thought', utterance the sense of addressing * of this thing thought', This view runs thought'. is dependent somebody upon the and is not present already in the to the whole Stoic theory counter
'thing of s??a????e?a For this reason I assume that in the and s??a????ta. cases of examples without a verb form the pragma itself contains not only the 'thing Agamemnon"), cases, that of swearing of the physical sign ?t?e?d? thought' (e.g. but also the son of Atreus, ..., of addressing, or, in other thought an oath etc. This means that the correlate honoured ... ????e???? in the asomatic realm is "Most
314
the pragma 'ADDRESS or to put it into another son)', (Atreus' 'Atreus' son being addressed'47). notational scheme, Corroboration is found in the fact that we of this interpretation now understand acts, different with why examples viz. those of command forms can indicate imperative and swearing etc. To take my
further, argument be said to contain
or a communication, d??e? t? ????a? e??a?. It is true that our sources are not as explicit of logical theory, as my exposition. But this is due to the tradition which is focused on the true-/falseness of statements, and which, in the case
it also explains why the axioma ???? pe??pate? can an assertion, not merely a piece of information est?? ?????? D.L. 7, 65: ? ??? ????? ??e?a
of axof Stoic logic, led to an almost exclusive discussion are but one kind iomata and their combinations. Axiomata, however, o? lekta which have to do with pragmata. In their discussion the Stoics a pragma^ with 'making an assertion mostly equate 'expressing about something', and so neglect to explain how the act of asserting it is is made48). of this concentration on axiomata Because skipped this phase, but it would have been better if they had explained the expression ???? pe??pate? as to a thought about Dion (a), which thought has to being correlate an assertion about do with his walking (b), and which contains understandable that the Stoics of t??????? distinction (c). But in their well-known is walkand s??a????e??? s??a???? (???? pe??pate?) ('Dion (Dion), Because, they do not differentiate steps (b) and (c)49). ing') on the relain the case of elliptic lekta they concentrated moreover, Dion's walking tionship of these lekta to the axiomata, viz. a specific kind between lekta, it was again easy not to differentiate a thought in whichever and 'expressing assertion' way'. lekta are of all this is that, as far as the non-axiomatic we have of Question to explain etc. the erotematic of complete an 'making
The upshot concerned, the idea etc. pragma as containing
Zeichen' und zur 47) Cp. Zs. Telegdi, Zur Herausbildungdes Begriffes 'Sprachliches stoischen Sprachlehre,ALingHung 26 (1976), 294 f. 48) E.g. Seneca Epist. 117, 13; translation and discussion by Long (1971 art.), 77 ff. See also ? 11 a. 49) S.E. 8, 74 (SVF 2, 168) ??a t? a????? fj ? ?e?d??, de? a?t? p?? pa?t?? ?e?t?? e??a?,e?ta ?a? a?t?te??? ?a? ?? ?????? ?p?????d?p?te ??? ???' a????a perhaps points in the direction of my exegesis.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT This
315
I think, to all cases of non-axiomatic applies, explanation of various speech acts where the pragma contains the indication lekta, in the same way as the axiomatic lekton inOrder etc.), (Question, But what about ?e?t?? ?????? ?????at?? dicates that of Assertion50). Which speech act is performed here? Now, Diocles does not define this kind of p????a d ?????te? we do '?', as is the but he says only d t?? ??f???? ???? ????lekta, ? p???? e?? p?pte? t?? ?????? t?? ?at???? pa?? t???? ?????? p?e??as??? Sextus first defines various kinds and then a????at???? (Text 1). comes to the distinction between and p???? ? a????a (? 2). a????a of lekton in terms the other case with Therefore, that the class of ?????? give an indication ?e?t??, in the same way ?????at? does not differ from ?p?fa?t???? as e.g. p??sta?t???? ?e?t?? does. Rather the class looks like that of of some words express?e?t? ?p?fa?t???; however, by the presence these ing emotions 7. thenon It seems is" it cannot be included in this latter category. beautiful the Parsources
easy to intuit why e.g. "How cannot be classified as an Assertion,
and it is a conse-
would that a rational explanation quence of my previous exposition be that this is so because a different speech act from that of asserting is performed. But though this explanation is ultimately on line with Stoic thought, we have seen that the Stoics did not explicitly think this way. Moreover, they bring other aspects to the fore when exwhy an axioma is either true or false. These aspects now plaining deserve if we are to find points of contact for a Stoic the non-axiomatic lekta are neither true nor false51). argument why As to the truth-conditions of an axioma, the relevant texts are: our attention
8, 12 (SVF 2, 166) ?????? ?st?? d ?st?? ????e? ? ?e?d?? and 8, 10 (SVF 2, 195) a????? ?st? t? ?p????? ?a? ??t??e??e??? t???, ?a? ?e?d?? t? ?? ?p????? ?a? ??t??e??e??? t???52), and the general d?fini50) For the problem of the copula see e.g. Nuchelmans 61 f. 51) According to W. Detel etc., ?e?t? e???p? in der stoischen Sprachphilosophie, AGPh 62 (1980), 276 ff., "gibt es keinen Beleg, der darauf hinweise, da? nur einige ?e?t? (etwa die ?e?t? a?t?te??) wahr oder falsch sind. Demnach haben auch ?e?t? e???p? Wahrheitswerte". But D.L. 7, 68 and the text quoted in nt. 49 prove the contrary as far as the ?. a?t. are concerned. Kerferd's arguments (see n. 52) on the true-/falseness of the ?. ???. are more cogent than Detel's. 52) It does not matter here whether ?e?t? e???p? can also be true or false, as Kerferd 261 ff. and Detel (see note 51) argue.
S.E.
316
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT in 8, 70 (SVF
2, 187) ?e?t?? d? ?p???e?? fas? t? ?at? It is not necessary here to explain ??????? fa?tas?a? ?f?st??e???. every detail of these and related texts53); it suffices to say that from these what texts it follows that "when a Lekton it expresses is the case ... In other words, virtue of something which is and this can only physically (corporeally), nally" (Kerferd 270). From these texts we have cannot 'be the our case' texts nowhere is true, it is so because a Lekton is true in
tion of ?e?t??
exists
be something which and so in the standard case54) exterthat non-axiomatic external. this To for these lekta my lekta.
to conclude
in relation
restricts ??pa???? to present tense predicates Chrysippus and the inference is easy only, excluding past and future tenses55), to make that a fortiori ?pa???? is denied to those lekta which are exmoods. Lekta containing oaths and quespressed by non-indicative tions and as well this will the cannot as those similar to axiomata are a case in themselves, be discussed non-axiomatic presently. lekta cannot
knowledge, However,
to something state explicitly
have ?pa????, and accorbe true, one might be inclined to think that they are dingly false. However, of lekta is inextricably with falseness interwoven their trueness, in other words, if a lekton can be false, and by virtue is false, this means that it also circumstances as we have seen, does not apply to the lekta true, what, If the conclusion discussion. that I have just reached is right, that the lekta with non-indicative moods as their parallel ly do not have ?pa????, those with indicative moods pressions to be accounted for. Here too our texts give no clear they give although lekta. First, previous tain words referring somewhat more answers than of external can be under namein ex-
When
still have
they such as p?? ???e? ????; do conQuestion-&/;ta to Dion as well as to an action ('living'), but as Diocles (D.L. 7, 65) puts it, it requires an answer in order to produce a statement. Such an answer would be e?ta??a ???e? ????, in
answers, did for the
53) See e.g. Nuchelmans 99 f., Frede 41 ff., Long (1971 art.), 100 f. and Kerferd 270 f. 54) The standard case is 'It is day'. 55) Stobaeus Eel. 1, 106, 5 H. (SVF 1, 509). See A. C. Lloyd, Definite Propositions in Brunschwig 294, and Kerferd 267.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT other S.E. the question-/*/:^ has no deictic
317 From that
the texts it appears 2, 205) and other (SVF of the on the presence of a lekton is also dependent trueness/falseness so that ??e?a est?? can be true or false (axioma), but deictic element, is only true if we see that it is day56), or, to take ???? pe??pate?, this axioma is only true if we can point out Dion in the act of walking57). to find in the question-lekton. Such a deixis is impossible that interests us here is not ?st? As to the oath-lekton, the example such as ?a? ?a t?de ??? t?de ?a?a, but those with indicative moods, t? ??? ?? p?t? f???a ?a? d???? f?se? ?t?. (//. 1, 234) and s??pt???, ?? ?a ???\ ????ae, ?a? ???ea pat??? ?????, ..., ?? t? d?at???? ??t??? The first example ?????, ???a ?e?e?? (Od. 20, 339-41). might be to Chrysippus as having a future tense, which according rejected cannot have ?pa???? (see above). records Nevertheless, Stobaeus58) a statement view that an oath containing with respect Chrysippus' to the time is either true or false, epe?d? a???of its being expressed if a statement is made with reference to a ?a t?????e? d?, whereas well (e????e??) future time, it is neither, but only a case of swearing or of perjury (?p????e??). This interpretation, which slightly deviates from mean that the oath of Od. the usual59), does not necessarily is either true or false, but may just imply that what is 20, 339-41 said in the oath (t? ?????e??? in Stobaeus' text) is of such a nature, viz. the words ?? d?at???? etc. The latter exegesis accords with treatment Simplicius' him, it was a common could solution to 1060), where, according Stoic tenet that in oaths only e?- or ?p????e?? not trueness or falseness. Then he offers his own in Text of oaths
words, 8, 97
component.
and says that in ?? t?? ?????? ?p?a?a t?de are neither true nor false, but themselves ?? t?? ?????? what these that has characteristics. follows61) t?de) (?p?a?a has excluded like ?p?a?a t?de from sentences Although Chrysippus it is quite possible that later Stoics accepted these. having trueness, the words 56) Cp. Kerferd 266. 57) S.E. 8, 100. 58) Anthol. 28, 17-8, vol. 3, 621 H. (SVF 1, 581 and 2, 197). 59) The usual interpretation in Nuchelmans 100, Long (1971 art.), 100 and J. D. G. Evans, The OldStoa on the truth-valueof oaths, PCPhS 20 (1974), 45. Frede 42 f. explains this matter more in the manner accepted here. 60) CAG VIII, In Aristot. Categ. 406, 22-32 (SVF 2, 192). 61) Simplicius uses p??tas?? as an equivalent of a????a. See LSJ s.v. la infine.
be the case, of this problem
318
At any rate, I am inclined to interpret Diocles' statement (7, 68) that oath-lekta are neither true nor false in this way that what marks it as an oath but that what (?? t?? ??a etc.) lacks these properties, is said thereafter to the present time. may have these, if referring Diocles as (p???? ? a????a). Finally the ?e?t?? ?????? ?????at? well as Sextus are explicit in their statement that this lekton falls outside the group o? axiomata and cannot be true or false. Let us take their common ?? ???a??d?s?? ??fe??? ? ????????. Without example, the particle ?? this line is an axioma, for we speak truly or falsely,
Sextus says (8, 73). But the presence of ?? takes it out of the class in his definio? axiomata. Diocles offers the same kind of explanation of this lekton: d t?? ??f???? ???? ?????at???? pa?? t???? ?????? ? p???? e?? p?pte? t?? ?????? t?? a?????t?? p?e??as??? (D.L. 7, 67). of why this is so; for each There are several possible explanations tion is not attainable. but certainty In chapter and verse can be quoted, /./. solves the problem the first place, Simplicius that by asserting in ?? ?a??? ? ?e??a?e?? ?st?? only the words after ?? contain what may be true or false, of Sextus' mulation word ??. This solution is a refordoes not explain A much. explanation to Diocles' information second solution attention that words pays such as ?? are said to be superfluous (pa?? t???? ?????? p?e??as???), in which they cause the sentence and, to use Sextus' designation, seems suggested are to be p???? ? a????a. A connection here with not the single and
of expletive the theory to s??des??? pa?ap?????at????, particles, to ancient and ?e belong, which according and ?? grammarians A strict interan emotional value (see ? lid). which may convey leads of the words pa?? t???? ?????? p?e??as??? pretation to its basic components. that to be an axioma is restricted know anything about such a view but it is a natural to the view We do not
for prerequisite we may infer that the presence and most probably, logic62). Finally, an element of emotion ???e etc. introduces (p????), which is alien to axioma and logic, takes sentences and for this reason with these words quence ticular. out of the class of axiomata. of Stoic To view This opinion in general, of emotions, are judgments, pathe Chrysippus would be the conseand of pathe in parand at but wrong,
62) In Theon's example (? 8, cp. comm. nr. 12): ?e????? ?? eotxe p?a???t?? a?t(a ?t?., ?? eotxe serves as an equivalent of ?e and ?? in the examples discussed. But Theon has nothing to say about the trueness of these types.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT other
319
times they are called an 'excessive impulse which is irrational, to the logos'63). For these reasons Stoics would not i.e. disobedient of containing logical truth. In of 'exhas the meaning p???? particular, we can understand cessive impulse', why these lekta may not be but the examples with ?? and ?e sugused in logical propositions, that p???? here means any emotion. gest It is a receptacle for all The range of this lekton is considerable. of these lekta as being capable if in Diocles' definition which do not fall under other kinds. Although our texts sentences that many items on the extendo not testify to it, one can imagine sive list of rhetorical figures of thought were reduced to this species, into smaller parts, such as in the same way as later it was divided and ?e?t????. ?a??ast???? 8. Whereas Aristotle had relegated the study of non-apophantic and poetics, the Stoics put the study
admit
logoi to the realm of non-axiomatic their dialectic
of rhetoric
lekta in the same
(D.L.
pe?? t?? p?a???t?? which are sentences,
place as that o? axiomata, viz. in in the t?p?? 7, 43 and 62), to be more precise, etc. (7, 63). Although the Aristotelian logoi, are not the same as the Stoic lekta, which are the place of treatment in status. Thus the question
and expressible incorporeal by sentences, a raising of their Dialectics the implies now
is, why this rise of status? Can we detect some special reasons for this promotion? Nuchelmans 62 f. is right in seeing the starting-point of the Stoic of complete lekta in the study of yes-or-no doctrine and questions the answers that are given to them. But when he continues 'Once and answers had become the object of a special yes-or-no questions branch of study, it was only natural to pay some attention to other lekta as well, if only to contrast them with complete one wonders how natural this process, ileged ones", the two in fact, privis64).
63) SVF 3, 378 and 456. Cp. Long (1974), 175-8 and A. C. Lloyd, Emotion and Decision in Stoic Psychologyin Rist 233 ff. 64) Pinborg 90-1: "We do not know how [the Stoics] treated these other functions of speech. There is some indication that they elaborated a system of questions which were to be asked in connection with every subject and were perhaps organized according to the categories. A reflection of this system can possibly be seen in the rhetorical doctrine of status (cf. especially Quintilian III, 6)". Here, too, I fail to see how a system of ten lekta could be produced.
320 We know
that Chrysippus maintained that only axiomata were we also know from Diogenes' that false, bibliography wrote treatises onprostagmata, answers (D.L. Chrysippus questions, 7, 191) and also ????? ?p??et???? and pe?? e???se?? (7, 196) all of we have seen that he these in the t?p?? ??????? (7, 198). Moreover, true or was also interested contents of these in the truth-value of oaths. ????? ?p??. and pe?? e???se?? has gone deeper seems that Chrysippus into axiomatic lekta and made up a list of these. All in all, though are unknown65), the matter the it
of non-
One may wonder, whether there was a good reason for him to compose a full however, list of all non-axiomatic lekta, for he could have been satisfied with did not relate to axiomata, but, conproving that many utterances to non-axiomatic between lekta, without sequently, distinguishing these. But as we have seen, he must have gone into this matter a has dealt with some nongood deal. At any rate, Chrysippus axiomatic Here. 307 lekta. This fact also (SVF 2, 298a)66). because of its fragmentary state and from hesitation text, probably As to the latter point, von Arabout its ascription to Chrysippus. nim has convincingly Maxargued (SVF 1, p. VII) that Valerius alludes to a collection imus Fact, et diet, memor. 8, 7, 10 (SVF 2,19) of 39 ??????, which tioned by Diogenes one volume and of lacunae is the same number 7, 198 (SVF that collection. 2, p. 8, 27), appears Scholars from have made the fragments of Pap. little use of this
as the 39 ??t??ata menand that our text is
readings tackled several way Chrysippus deal studied more than is done up to now67). I shall not, however, with the whole text, but single out what is of interest for our subject. First,
uncertain
a multitude of Notwithstanding the text gives an insight into the and it should have been problems,
then, I must point to p. 106, 27, where von Arnim reads rather differently (?) ai (!)): (?) a? ?????s?? ??? ta p????ata (Cr?nert ??t' (??)??ta? ??te d(? d?)????s?? ??te p??st?tt??(s??) s??a??(??)s?? 65) Cp. Frede 44. 66) First published by W. Cr?nert, Hermes 36 (1901), 550-67. Von Arnim used Cr?nert's text and changed it at many places (SVF 2, 298a, pp. 96, 24-110, 40). Cr?nert, Gnomon 6 (1930), 143 reminds us that this papyrus "ist noch immer nicht mit Gr?ndlichkeit nachgepr?ft worden". 67) This has been done by E. Br?hier, Chrysippeet l'ancien sto?cisme,Paris 1910 (nouv. ?d. 1954), 24-9, and by P. Pachet, L'imp?ratif sto?cienin Brunschwig 361 ff. Some references in Long (1974) and Frede 27 ff.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT (??t' lines
321
The immediately ??t)e p???????(t)a^. preceding ?)??t?s(?? von Arnim's are extremely but, provided supfragmentary, in view of the other problems are right, I would suggest, putions dealt with in the papyrus, which do not pressions axiomatic here is talking about exthat Chrysippus fall under and other nonquestion-,
lekta, and though they express pragmata, are nevertheless as axiomata, which is apparently the only remainnot to be classified to think about ?????? ?????at?One is inclined ing possibility. lekton6*). Another 107, is the extent of a command. On p. interesting problem of amphiboliai, double-sided 35 ff. in a context expressions, an expression such as pe??pate? ?pe? ??e?a discusses to pe??pate? only, or also to the the p??sta??? extend into note that the two different words? It is interesting lead to two lekta, the other one containing pe??pate?? only, does not fall under are pe??pate?? epe?d? whereas ?pe? ??. the command. It for we have with
Chrysippus ?st??. Does three other
terpretations
??e?a est??, (Cr?nert) ?st?? comes from the outside, is a pity that the following would like to know what for Chrysippus. In his next double
lines
consequences
again fragmentary, these interpretations he is not but concerned
instance
the interpretation which lekton, if any, corresponds to a specific order, such problem as ??t?? pe??pate?, e? d? ?? ?????. The whole comes under the order with ??t?? (p??ta ?e? ?a? ?p? t?? p??sta??? p?pte?), but a comparison means that this command e? d? ?? ????ta? pe??pate?, suggests because it is equivalent to an endless string of orders69). nothing which proThis opinion that an order must be executable, implies and that one who gives is absent from a string of orders, perty a series of orders has the intention of ordering, not merely uttering words ????? in the form case 109, of a command. is an order words of the following mean 'either form, ? pe??pate? ? walk or sit down' or A different (p.
(p. 108, 17 ff.) of one expression,
seems
to tackle
11). These
68) But Long (1974), 135 may be right in suggesting that "Chrysippus seems to have drawn a distinction between someone's thoughts or what he means to say, and the statement which a listener may take him to be making". 69) 108, 35 ff. : ????sta p??e?t??t?, t? d? ??, t??t? p??e?,e? 8? ??, t??t?, ?a? ??t?? e???pe????.
322 'walk
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT at any inclined
In the first case rate, do something'. of a real order to accept the presence e? d? ?? ?a??s?a?, 25-6), but in the second case he thinks (pe??pate??, that no real order is given (t? ??t???? ????? p??st?ttes?a?, 15-6). or sit down, seems Chrysippus I think, is linked with an even more vague order, d ?t??e no real order is t??t?? ?a?e, for Chrysippus says that perhaps ??? ???? t? est?? e??e?? t? p??statt??e??? given, ??te ??? ?at??????a us into probThe explanation t????t?? ????? (34-7). (???) brings This case, lems, is it appears that by ?at??????a as to perthe verbal action in itself without qualification understood we would take son etc.70). In d ?t??e t??t?? ?a?e, consequently, t? p??statt??e??? and infer that it is unclear ?a?e?? as ?at??????a because from 11. 23-25 is object kategorema which what but Chrysippus meant, explicitly similar can be ordered or something says that no can be found
will be that ?a?e?? d ?t??e t??t?? (or even here71). The explanation d t??e?? t??t??) and ?a?e?? ?p??????? do not mean anything specific, in the same way as ??t?? pe??pate? ?t?. (108, 17 ff.) was rejected for this reason. is that what seems to be an of Chrysippus' enquiries order (??t?? pe??pate?, e? d? ??, ?????; ? pe??pate? ? ?????; d ?t??e t??t?? ?a?e) does not relate to orders in the world of lekta. The For we seem small but are important. of this enquiry results The upshot observe at work and look, as it were, over his shoulder. Chrysippus We see that he starts with the physical words, the ?????, and from he appears to to the lekta. By this method these works backwards lexis from 9 and as we will see in lekta, a factor of importance to nonserious attention 10. Finally, Chrysippus pays that to him this field was important lekta. This means
dissociate parr. axiomatic
Of of Stoic logic. in the framework to be investigated enough he does of his enquiries course, because of the character (??t??ata) and often only defines the not come forward with clear solutions problem. nonexamined that Chrysippus it is certain many Although the we can compose lekta and from the titles of his works axiomatic 70) Cp. SVF 2, 349 and 3, 91. 71) Pachet o.e. 368 does not comment on the meaning of ?at??., but translates "car on ne peut y trouver de pr?dicat (de contenu) au commandement, ni m?me rien d'autre qui ressemble".
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT whole list of them
323
he is its as given in ? 5, we may doubt whether of the authorship of the Stoic This doubt is a consequence author. This definition of dialectic. definition 7, 62, cp. 42) runs as (D.L. ?a? ?e?d?? ?a? ???et????. follows: d?a?e?t??? ?st? ep?st??? a????? From classified 7, 68 it appears that the non-axiomatic is under This definition ????te?a72). lekta are ascribed to not be to
does not seem to have but to Posidonius. Chrysippus Chrysippus, a true definition but only to have written that dialectic is congiven cerned definition with and s??a????e?a 7, 62). Posidonius' s??a????ta (D.L. older ones in as far as he included of may be a correction
the 'neuters', but this does not mean that he was the first to give this. his attention, for Chrysippus had done them already the authorship of the list looks to ascribe to Posidonius Therefore, rather too. improbable He seems to be a good ?e?t?? from for a division inside the list, viz. and ???et????, in that their examples are mathematico-astronomical works, and we know that he candidate ?p??et???? in this subject. Kerferd has already made it of his mathematical made studies Posidonius
between taken
was greatly interested that because plausible a contribution same
to logical analysis. Posidonius may have done the for the species mentioned73). If he did indeed distinguish between these two kinds, he will have done so in order to clarify the difference their functions. between in themselves, ?e?t?? ?p??et???? and ???et???? do not differ when put into speech, both using verb forms such as ?st? and For ?p??e?s??. But whereas the ecthesis sets out the mathematical prothe hypothesis is the starting point of the proof. The distincposition, tion in function is useful in a mathematical outside it, context, it has no value whatsoever74). however, All in all, the most probable reconstruction list o? lekta autotele seems to be that Chrysippus discussed of the history of the the various
72) Cp. Egli 32 ("Die Definition der Dialektik sagt eher aus, da? auch Pr?dikate und autotel?behandelt werden, als da? Aussagen betrachtet werden, die weder wahr, noch falsch sind") and Kerferd 276. 73) Inter alia I refer to fr. 195 ?.-?. where Posidonius asks for different expressions in the cases of ?e???t??? and p??????at??? p??tas??. 74) J. Mansfeld suggests a possible link with the ?p??et????t?p?? in Stoic ethics, but a consultation of M. Giusta, I dossografidi etica, Pubb. Fac. Lett, e Filos. 15, 3-4, Torino 1964, esp. II 327-49 yields nothing.
324
kinds, that he, or one of his pupils, put together the list often kinds, whereas later on Posidonius their existence recognized by including of dialektike under the name of 'neuters'. them in his definition He a new kind, ?e?t?? ???et????. to the question posed at the start of this paragraph, was the rise in status of the non-axiomatic kinds effectuated why by the Stoics? A specific reason cannot be detected; we can only suralso introduced return To that a great interest in language, to cover the whole field of philosophy mise the Stoics 9. to research times into I these with an endeavour together in one consistent system, led kinds too. to differences going between into this
Several
have
alluded
Peripatetic in detail. a one-to-one
eide logou and Stoic lekta autotele without It is time now to turn to this matter. the relation
and thought between language in the sense that spoken words relationship, bols of thought and represent exactly what one thinks75). that Aristotle is aware of ambivalence of language, which is of great
To Aristotle
is mainly are symIt is true
and the distinc-
tions of ??????a and s??????a, import in Topics and Soph. Elench., points to this awareness, but in his few remarks on s???ata this awareness. ???e?? he never exploits By relegating he only views at the of hypokritike, moreover, these to the province verbal The expression. latter aspect of intonation is left aside when we come to the
too. It is not eide logou, but these are verbal expressions Peripatetic that e.g. the Anonymous Coislinianus insignificant (a) (T 4) connects the Peripatetic five kinds with ? p??f?????? ?????. Therefore Ammonius is able to reduce e.g. the d????? ?????at? to the ?p?fa?of the intensifying of the p?e??as??? adverb ?? t???? ????? because under the heading 2 f.), and to put the ?pap???t???? e?d?? (? 3, 3, of the question-Zo^oj (ibid.). of To the Stoics, the lekta were not the wordings however, thought, sentences. but the action This means the not that and things thought these sentences ????? Peripatetic seem an to have which are in are expressed are not identical with sentences. These way of
the lekta, whereas lekta do asomatic
unchangeable
75) Cp. Nuchelmans 38 f., who, however, is silent about ??????a etc.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT For have the external of signs verbal mood the various
325 lekta (the but be-
expression76). sentences)
may lekta. The same is true different represent and p?s?a which are not quite tween e??t??a In this way we can also explain their moods. repugn. 1037 d77), ???? ??t?? (se. ??? ???e?? ????
the same
?p??e?s??), (?st?, for the differences
by distinguishable De Stoic, Plutarch,
apa???e???ta? te??. ? ?a? ????? ???e? ??? a?t? t??t? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? d? ?? ???pte??. Here, it is true, a apa???e?e? d? ???pte?? p??st?tte? of would lead to the distinction of the foregoing strict application a new which is not found in our texts. lekton viz. t? ?pa???e?t????, back is clear: the same wording But the principle may be brought I refer to the Stoic studies of to different lekta. In this connection where starting from the actual utterances they point ambiguity, i.e. of one expression, the various possible interpretations de capi. 4, 106, 16 ff. Edlow (SVF 2, lekta. In Galen, various which is of ambiguity, we find several Stoic classes among out the 153)
?? St?????) t??? ?e ??? ?????s? d' ?pa???e?e?? ???? d? p??st?t-
a?a?t? ?? with its example ?p????e?se? f?????a pa?? t?? p?e??as??? is ambiguous, t? ?a? ?? p??s?e??e??? ??f?d???? p?e??. This example e?te t? ?? p?e??78). The same p??e? t? p??, e?te t? p?e?? ?p????e?se? of a?f?????a in D.L. 7, 6279), namely idea underlies the definition that the same ty with the with the same in conformi????? may indicate two or more p????ata and reference with their non-metaphorical wording, usage80).
76) Cp. J. Mansfeld, Zeno of Citium, Mnem. IV 31 (1978), 143-5. 77) SVF 2, 171. Cp. Nuchelmans 65. 78) In Plutarch's text Pachet o.e. 365 would like to do without Meziriac's insertion of ???pt. p??st. d?, in order to obtain a deliberate ambiguity, like the one in Galen's text. However, Plutarch's introductory words make the insertion necessary; ?pa???e?e?? + infin. without ?? is Greek too, and, finally, why would a Stoic be deliberately ambiguous in an explanation? 79) SVF 3, 23, p. 214, 5-10, especially a?f?????a U ?st? ?????d?? ? ?a? p?e???a p????ata s??a????sa ?e?t???? ?a? ?????? ?a? ?at? t? a?t? ????. 80) This translation I base upon that of Edlow's 426 (R. B. Edlow, The Stoics on Ambiguity, JHPh 13 (1975), 423-36), but I take ?????? as the opposite of ?etaf??????. ?at? t? a?t? ???? does not necessarily point to the same Stilgattung only (so Egli 18), but may have a wider meaning, cp. D.L. 7, 59 ? ?a??a??s??? ?? t?? ?a???? ??????st? p??a t? ???? t?? e?d???????t?? ???????. Edlow's interpretation of ?????? ('strictly') seems to be that the opposite of ?????? is 'due to misunderstanding', which, however, comes too close to barbarismos.
326
To return to the differences between Peripatetic logoi and Stoic lekta, it is clear that the main differentia is found on the level of verbal versus that of things thought which are to be expressed. expression But ones. We can get a deeper insight distinctions a modern by applying procedure has the advantage of material81). In his Speech Acts Searle82) acts, i.e. what one performs distinguished four kinds positional (acts of stating, acts (of referring 10. into the nature theory detecting of these ancient for this at old the Aristotelian reduce commentators of Stoic overlooked kinds this difference own and so could the surplus to their Peripatetic
of speech acts, new aspects
has made when
one
of speech acts, and predicating),
study of speech a language. He speaks acts, (b) pro(a) utterance acts (c) illocutionary and (d) promising), acts on the actions, These fruitful ideas Bolkestein,
a thorough
Following in a she distinguishes two levels of meanings of a sentence viz. the semantic structure (a), which is "that part situation, particular is contributed which of the total information conveyed by the Searle properties linguistic those factors which There sentence distinction we find in its by the two of the have sentence", to do with and the the pragmatic actual the final the level (b), speech-situation. of the function of the
questioning, commanding, acts (the effects of illocutionary perlocutionary or beliefs etc., of the hearer (24-5). thoughts, and developed have been thought by Mrs. through I take as my starting-point83). whose exposition (26-35)
illocutionary force, i.e. situation. She illustrates sentences:
'do you 'take a may be uttered with two different illocu(1) cigarette' (2). for infortionary forces: it may function either purely as a Question On the other or as an Offer to the hearer to take a cigarette. mation, a the illocutionary act of offering in order to perform hand, Sentence 81) See e.g. D. Cherubin, GrammatischeKategorien. Das Verh?ltnis von 'traditioneller' und 'moderner' Sprachwissenschaft (Reihe German. Linguist. 1), T?bingen 1975, 4 ff. Nuchelmans has already applied this theory, but not explicitly. 82) J. R. Searle, Speech Acts. An Essay in the philosophy of language, Cambridge 1969. 83) A. M. Bolkestein, Problemsin the Descriptionof Modal Verbs.An investigation of Latin, Thesis, Assen 1980.
importance smoke?' (1), and
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT the
327
cigarette determine
speaker can use both sentences (1) and (2). Now to we have to force of these sentences the illocutionary we have determined know the pragmatic factors, because although from the that sentence (1) can carry two different forces, in isolation actual carried semantic situation in that this sentence situation. This does also not indicate means that which force will be of the on the level
we may decide that in principle two forces are in principle in other words every sentence has a certain acceptable, and semantic its syntactic determined illocutionary potential, by propat beforehand exclude other illocutionary erties. These properties structure forces. tion For instance, sentence (2) cannot be used in order to funcof a form of the Imas an Assertion, of the presence because and other in sentence the word-order Mood. perative Similarly, (1) this sentence as an from functioning phenomena linguistic preclude Assertion. a possible These elements illocutionary as indicators of may be said to function force, and among these word-order, stress, and the so-called mood, particles appear. in sentences makes it possible to classify and Im-
intonation, grammatical The presence of moods those
to sentence-types, such as Declarative, according whereas with sentences, perative by this characteristic coupled other indicators an Interrogative can also be distinguished. It type to see that on the level of semantic structure is, however, important a sentence-type does not always stand in a one-to-one relation with force. illocutionary How and sentence-types forces must be many illocutionary is to some extent a matter of one's own liking, as well distinguished as of one's capability of making distinctions. As I am not concerned here with an exhaustive Greek by this of, say, Ancient description of it, I can leave the matter system, but only with several principles of the number of forces and types aside. in time we do not It is self-evident of the distance that because know reach This the actual no further force of spoken ancient Greek and can illocutionary than its illocutionary the possible forces. potential, of course, is no obstacle to the application of these
restriction, and related notions
to the theories of speech of Antiquity, for there the examples sentences and literary quotations) lack an (simulated whereas what can be seen as such, together actual situation, with its pragmatical is not actual but literary and fictitious. factors,
328
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT ???e?? again as my starting point. s???ata can be described as sentences clearly carrying illocutionary of Commanding, Answer etc. AristoMenacing, Question,
I shall take Aristotle's These forces tle's
does not tell us anything about the forms of these about the form of ????? ???e??. But Protagoras' problem ae?de, ?e? with its Imperative mood, where he asks for an Optative mood because a prayer is meant, we now can solve by the explanation that though the Imperative sentence????? ae?de represents description s???ata type, its illocutionary reckon that of Prayer. language. etc. belongs His remark force What is one of Request, to which we may we also deduce from Aristotle's words
is that to him all this matter
does not belong to the proper study of in De Interpr. 17 a 1 ff. that the study of e??? to rhetoric (see ? 2) has been taken up by later rhetori-
a whole system of s???ata cians, who have developed d?a???a?, i.e. the ways in which one shapes one's thoughts84). As to the Peripatetic e?d? ?????, it is clear that most of these can as sentence-types, which sentences be classified have, a one-to-one to illocutionary forces. The types relation moreover, for the exare Imperative, and Interrogative, Declarative Optative, are to be arranged as such by their moods and other inamples The are their correlate, viz. of dicators. forces illocutionary The fifth e?d??, ? and Question. Assertion, Command, Request, of Apostrophe, as a sentence-type ???t???? ????? may be classified of course, by doing so we and its force as one of Address, although, of a sentence. We in the question of the definition become involved problem (? 3). and illocutionary sentence-type of even in the following force is present examples everywhere, ???, p???a??' ?d?se? 12, 184), for a?e ???t???? ?????, de??' a?' (Od. on as an adverb of pa?a???e?s?? is usually (cp. Uhlig explained Techne p. 82, 1). It is true that in the next line an imperative in favour of the message occurs, but this fact is neglected (st?s??) will suffice for a second exThe same explanation of a ???t???? ?????, (de??? p?????' ?????sa, f???? t????, ??e? ample mood is neglected again. ??e??, 77. 3, 182), where the imperative of the first line. have already seen that Ammonius The one-to-one relation between had a similar
84) See Dion. Hal. c.v. (T 9) and note 19.
329
we can understand of this one-to-one Because relationship why five was explained the Peripatetic the surplus of Stoic lekta beyond away as being in reality one of the five. The main reason was, of on the exand others based themselves that Ammonius course, in speech of the ?e?t?. Then, in the cases i.e. the realisation amples, vide ?e?t?? there was little problem, of p?s?at???? and ?pap???t???? p??e? e?? a?d???; and ?a?? p??est?, t? p?t' ?pa?the examples t?? to be the apophantikos ?e??? a?a; The ?????? ?????at? was considered logos with declaration ?p??et???? of an surplus about something. and ???et???? ?e?t?? the intensifying For the it is more a just giving of ???????, examples difficult to see why these adverb,
an as apophantikos logos, for all of these contain are to be arranged Ammonius and ?st?). mood (?st?, ?p??e?s?? explains Imperative of truth and that these all are receptive their reduction by saying for t? ?????? ?????at? and this statement and exemplifies falseness, Amt? ???????. The first case I have already dealt with, whereas not found for t? ??????? refers to an example monius' explanation in Anon. in his text, but present Coisl. (a) (T 4) (see ? 5): ?? ?a contains the Declarative ???' ????ae (Od. 20, 339). Its sequence could say that t? (?? t? d?at???? ?t?.) and thus Ammonius is an apophantikos logos with the surplus of a ?a?t???a t?? ?e??? ??????? silent about the rest, and so do other (p. 2, 35 ff.). But he remains type commentators. Ammonius that this leger-de-main does not prove Therefore, a force of as carrying an Imperative sentence-type still and my conclusion about the one-to-one relationship took
Assertion, that we must use this stands. It is, moreover, quite understandable for that is built in order to explain Ammonius' system, relationship of ???st??a? and ??e?t??a? d????e?? with a final upon the assumption and In exhaustive the case
linguistic not have
of no more than five possibilities. partition of the Stoic lekta, too, we can apply the various but with some differences. notions, Firstly, the Stoics did lekta. which limited the number of possible a framework
their distinctions. Therefore, Secondly, they were free in making of intended illocutheir lekta are to be seen as having the function but which are exemplified, acts (illocutionary tionary potential), when they are exnot determined, the actual sentences. Only by pragmatical pressed is the actual speech act carried out. However, between factors must be taken into account too, for the difference
330 ?e?t??
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT ?p??et???? and ???et???? is exactly one of their functions in as their examples show. For the sake of conI shall continue to speak of illocutionary forces, to some lekta only. p?s?a and ?e?t?? ?pap???t???? are Inbut other indicators as well as con-
a geometrical venience, and now The apply
context,
however, this notion
examples
of e??t??a,
Wh-question Question, The example of the latter lekton (??' est? s???e??? and Self-question. t? ??p? ?a? ????; D.L. 7, 68) looks like a simple yes-or-no question, We may but the theatrical context of this line marks it differently. Anon. Coisl. a (T 4, xxiii), d?ap???t???? compare t? p???; a?t?? p??? a?t??, ?? t? ... ???? ???, as a p?s?a. tion (Od. 5, 465) can also be classified d ... ?st? ???t?s?? Here the quotaTheon
terrogatives text show
qua sentence-type, that their forces are Yes-or-no
(T 8, 88, 9 ff.) puts it clearly when he says that qua expression t? ?pap??e?? we put a question and t? ???ta? do not differ at all, 'for whether we will put it thus', ??' est? p??t?? a???p??a or are in self-doubt, After this he explains the difference as one between ?a???stat??;85). an answer and not doing this but only being at a loss requiring towards oneself. He could have added that the same is true in the of p?s?a and ?pap???s??. now be evident that by using the notion of illocutionary force as a typical speech act we may describe the Stoic lekta quite adeAnother quately. point to be made is that the examples prove that cases It will the one-to-one found here. and e??t??? examples viz. ?d? sf' e???fa??? ?a??d?? ???? ?? dde are very interesting (T 2), ????? (II. 3, 300) and ?e? p?te? ... d?? ????? ??a?t? ?a? ???a?? e???? Some Stoics could have put both ???s?a? (//. 7, 202) respectively. under e??t???, but seem to have looked at their examples together of ??at??? context and to have concluded acts of Curse pression that they were what we now may call and Prayer. They were not hindered by the actual exmoods as and thus could qualify sentences with imperative follows forces. That they were not hindered very different of the lekta, as we have seen before. the Stoic point of view, because of its flexibility of ?e?t? a?t?te?? has much in its favour in comparison relationship In this context between Sextus' types and forces is not to be
carrying from the status From distinction
a modern
85) Menander Sententiae53.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT with
331
five. On the other hand, this flexibility the Peripatetic may in the same way this lead to a host of unnecessary subdistinctions, on schemata dianoeas. treatises was done in the case of the rhetorical of a one-to-one relationabout the absence my conclusion between and its illocutionary the form of a sentence force, ship which conclusion is based on various of complete lekta, examples Now may be startling to some. For Lloyd86) speaks about the Stoic view " which is in fact isomorphism bethat there is a similarity being This is the case as far as the tween the lekton and the expression". which, moreover, p??ta? f??a? are concerned, correspond exactly with their objects. But apart from these words, Chrysippus ait omne verbum ambiguum natura esse, quoniam ex eodem duo vel plura accipi I relate here88), rightly adds whose arguments possunt87). Mansfeld, Plutarch, pus' form of a word of Plutarch, there about 11. The De Stoic, rep. 1048 a (SVF 3, 137) and points to Chrysipwith anomaly or the discrepancy the between preoccupation In this context I remind the reader and its meaning. 1037 d, discussed before (? 9), and my remarks Stoic studies on ambiguity89). ibid.
will be to test the hypothesis of this paragraph purpose that the Stoics have made a theory of moods on the basis of their for this hypothesis are, of theory of lekta autotele. The main impulse course, ?e?t?? the similarities ~ between various names An on both p??sta?t???? e????s?? p??sta?t???. important of this hypothesis is that the test will not be complete sides, e.g. consebefore
quence the application made
of the system of lekta to a theory of moods has been for all lekta, not only for those with an immediate counterpart
moods. We shall see that in this case the noamong the well-known tion of mood has to be taken in a wider sense than is usually done. 86) Long (1971 art.), 65. Cp. Long (1974), 135-6 and A. Graeser, The Stoic Theory of Meaning in Rist 93. 87) Gellius Noct. Att. 11, 12 (SVF 2, 152). et 88) o.e. 143-5. See also Ch. Imbert, Theoriede la repr?sentation doctrine logique in Brunschwig 235-6. 89) It must be noted that our main source on Stoic ambiguities, Galenus De Captionibus, ch. IV (Galen On Language and Ambiguity, ?d. R. B. Edlow (Philos. Ant. 31), Leiden 1977), is paralleled to a great extent by Theon, Progymn. 81, 30-83, 13. He starts as follows: *?saf? d? t?? ?????e?a? p??e? ?a? ? ?e?????? a?f?????a p??? t?? d?a?e?t???? (!).
332 Before
it is convenient into this matter, to inhowever, going how and by what means a lekton comes into existence90), vestigate a. Diocles states that the Stoics put the theory of fa?tas?a and their other theories before because the criterium of the a?s??s?? truth the about way; discourse ing is a fa?tas?a. For impression leads things generically then thought, is able to speak, which in expresses as a result of the impression'91). what it experiences Bedefined
as an impression or alteration (t?p?s??), in the psyche (SVF 2, 53-9), phantasia is also (?te????s??, ??????s??) said to produce a movement in the soul92). This movement in the commonly soul is also said to be one of the soul (SVF 2, 23, 6), which is quite the soul enters a as the soul is a soma. By this movement possible S.E. 8, 397 (SVF 2, 91) t? ??t?s? (d???es??)93) (e.g. so we d?ate???a? and 7, 237). Just as there are several dispositions, have to reckon with various kinds of movements. This I conclude disposition from the passage in Seneca Ep. 117, 13, where he describes how an Sunt naturae corporum, tanquam hie homo est, hic assertion is made: equus. Has deinde sequuntur motus animorum enuntiativi corporum e. q. s.94). The rest of the text shows that motus enuntiativi are the movement an assertion, is ?p?fa?t???? in i.e. enuntiativus and that the movement results in an enuntiatum ( = a???Greek95), as there are non?e?t?? However, ?a, just ?p?fa?t????)96). which makes 90) 'Existence' is used here in a general sense without any implication that lekta, like somata, have an independent existence. Being asomatic they co-exist only (S.E. 8, 70 (SVF 2, 187) t? ?at? ??????? fa?tas?a? ?f?st??e???) along with our dianoia (ib. 8, 12 = SVF 2, 166). See Long (1971), 84-90. 91) D.L. 7, 49 (SVF 2, 52). Translation of Long (1974), 25. Cp. Kerferd 251, one is ???a??t????wrongly, whose translation suggests that out of several d?????a? I think. 92) S.E. 7, 242 ff. (SVF 2, 65). ?????a is used there of p??a?a?fa?tas?a? but implied for the ap??a??? (a? ?? t??a?ta?). The distinction between p??a?a? and ap??a???fa?tas?a? governs all others. Cp. ib. 372 (SVF 2, 56, p. 23, 8) and 8, 397 (SVF 2, 91). 93) S.E. 8, 397 (t? ??t?s? d?ate???a?) and 7, 237. Cp. ?. A. Gartner, AGPh 61 (1979), 103-4. 94) Tr. Long (1971 art.), 77: 'There are material natures, such as this man, this horse, and they are accompanied by movements of thought which make affirmations about them". 95) Cp. ThLl. s.v., 1. 96) The correspondence between this text and D.L. 7, 49 (? d?????a???a??t??? ?p?????sa d p?s?e? ?p? t?? fa?tas?a?, t??t? e?f??e? ????) is considerable, the difference being that the property of being ???a??t??? is not restricted to expressing assertions only.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT axiomatic
333
lekta, there must be also other motus besides the enuntiativi', We do lekton could not be produced. the non-axiomatic otherwise, in our sources, exmentioned not find such movements explicitly in a 13 ff. (Cp. ? 8). There Theon Progymn. 62, cept in one, occurs: the following Stoic context t?? ?a? passage definitely d?a???a? ?f' ??? p????at? p??spes??sa? ?? ?a?' e?a t??p?? ??????e??? ???a ?ste p??se????as?a? a?t? fa?tas?a? ?????? ... p?t? de e??t??t?? ?a? p?t? ?e? ap?fa???????? p?e????, ????, ep?s?? ?a??? (19) ??d?? ????e? ?at? p??ta? t??? t??p??? t? fa?tas??? of what I is a welcome corroboration ??e?e??e??97). This passage deduced fering from Seneca's text about lekta. the existence of movements difaccording when a lekton is produced, ????s?? (motus) is involved Accordingly, to the various lekta. In this as well as d???es??: these vary according of a lekton is the we do not find it said that the production process result of an inclination e????s?? or e?????a, words b. After this discussion matical moods in an (e????s?? ?????), resulting texts. are used in grammatical of the origin of the gramthe problem must be In this field three questions can be tackled. of the soul which to different t?? ?at?
the Stoics could have distinguished viz. whether answered, grammatical moods (1), and, if so, whether (2) and how they did so (3). from R. To take the first question first, in the relevant literature one sometimes comes onwards grammar of this question. The core of the arguments a study of of this denial is that a distinction of moods presupposes which study the Stoics did not undertake verbs as single items, on the ?at??????ata, not their physical because they concentrated Schmidt's across work on Stoic denial a definite (72) already admits that the theory o? autotele lekta signs98). Schmidt to a theory of moods, but he reiterates have given an impulse may 97) 'The dianoia is moved by one and the same pragma not in one way only so that the phantasm which falls upon it would do so in the same way and uniformly, but (it is moved) in several ways. Accordingly, at one time we utter statements, this reason nothing hinders us to express what at another we ask questions.For is offered by phantasia in all these ways, which, at the same time, are all equally beautifur. 98) Schmidt 71 f.; R. F. L. Skrzecka, Die Lehre des Apollonius Dyscolus vom Verbum, 3r Theil, Progr. K?nigsberg 1861, 2 explicitly follows Schmidt; Steinthal I 317 and II 272 f?. does not refer to Schmidt, but factually agrees with him. Hagius 73 ff. does the same.
334 that have
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT a proper discussed basis for this was lacking. have not gone Most other scholars who but of
it is a rather
this subject serious one.
into this objection99), It is strengthened by my conclusions
the foregoing on the absence of a one-to-one paragraph relationship between and illocutionary sentence-type forces100). Consequently, it looks as if we will not be able to go beyond SteinthaTs conclusion, kennen die Stoiker den grammatischen genommen "genau Begriff der Modi eben so wenig wie Protagoras", unless we can overcome the objection. Now it is interesting to note that in the case of tenses Schmidt retracts moods offers the same it and gives his argument kind of argument, after which he implicitly a survey of the Stoic theory (65 ff.)101). For the in the same way if evidence may be undercut can be brought forward. in itself the Moreover,
system is not as strong as it looks. For in their presentation of argument Stoics started with the impressions and ended dialectic, admittedly, with lekta and arguments, but they cannot but have entered into the language. Zetemata the side of the expression, the did so in his Logika Chrysippus and could not find the lekton corresponding to a given and not the other When round. sentence, confronted, way with sentences such as ??t?? pe??pate? or ??t?? pe??pate?, therefore, the Stoics may have found it worthwhile to investigate the linguistic object We of their from analysis have seen that
of a Stoic
and to distinguish between in the same way as moods, properties did for tenses and cases102). Moreover, when a notion of mood they a name, this did not necessarily was introduced and had received and balanced entail a complete later. The system as was developed shows that after the establishment of history of ancient linguistics this theory e????s?? as well as d???es?? were used in various senses and that separation which were closely connected took centuries (see notes 107 and 116); it may be added that especially in Latin
99) ?. Kretzmann, History of Semantics, in P. Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York 1967, vol. 7, 364-5; Pinborg 90-1; Frede (1977), 60 and (1978), 63, and A. Graeser o.e. 93. See also G. Calboli, I modi del verbo grecoe latino, Lustrum 11 (1966), 177-8. 100) Other arguments such as Steinthal's (? 272) are not important and are sometimes based on misinterpretations or incompleteness of material. 101) Hagius 81 ff. partly neglects the evidence and still denies the existence of a Stoic system of tenses. 102) See also the excellent exposition of Frede (1977).
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT works the number not of moods
335
grammatical the Finally,
a moot point. remained in vacuo. They could have used of a system of moods. hints for the production several Aristotelian Some of these have been mentioned already (? 1), more are given now. In De Interpr. 16 b 16 ???a?e? and ???a?e? are called pt?se?? of the ???a ???a??e?, whereas Poet. 1457 a 17 ff. ?ad??e? and ?e??d??e are Stoics did work adduced of ???a, as examples In Top. 153 b 25 infinitives by the word pt?s??. designated only verb forms and but ???d?se?; and ??d??e as pt?se??. (as well as nomina verbalia) are This word covered much more than of the Stoics a more in Stoic
precise meaning acquired theory (see note 105), but the Stoics may have adapted some to a system of their own. notions Aristotelian that we may safely start with the supposition Therefore, like a theory of moods. could have developed something c. Let us now look
a Stoic origin. In the at the data concerning of the last decades Pinborg fullest discussion (1975, 90-1) does not the possibility of a Stoic origin. He bases go beyond acknowledging his argument cussed above De Stoic, rep. 1037 d (SVF 2, 171, dison Macrobius De diff., GL V, 611, 36 (denique ? 9), Stoici hunc solum modum (sc. the indicative rectum, velut mood) between discussions in nominativum, vocaverunt) and on similarities in Stoic dialectic, with specific elements such as the grammarians on Plutarch the use of d???es?? for both voice and mood (see note 116). we have more data. One of these is a text (Anecd. Oxon. However, to be quoted later), where it is said that besides the usual 3, 267, two more moods, five the Stoics distinguished e????s?? a?a???t??? The same information is found in Anecd. ?'????s?? ?p??et???. Choeroboscus ascribes 1, 104 (Epimerismi Homeri), whereas this extension of the number of moods to ?? f???s?f??103). Then, to Apollonius according synt. 43, 15 ff. the Stoics called the inand Oxon. finitive ???a, and pe??pate? ? ???fe? ?a? a? ap? t??t?? e????se?? were
103) GG IV 2, 232, 4 ff. Skrzecka o.e. 2 thinks these testimonies on the addition of two moods unprecise (partly rightly) and adds "es ist an die ????? der Peripatetiker zu denken" (wrongly). In that case one would expect a complete enumeration, as is given in ? 3 ff. Skrzecka*s quotation of ? 6 is incomplete. Finally, how can the mood of question be meant as an addition to the Peripatetic logoi, when one of these is already e??t??at????? These texts have almost never been used in the modern literature on Stoic syntax, probably because of Steinthal's wrong report and ascription to the Peripatetics (II 272).
336 called
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT Hal. De Finally, Dionysius be mentioned if only for its
? s???a?a by them. ?at??????a must comp. verb. 6, 4 p. 29, 9-10 U.-R. corroboration of the text of Macrobius. possibilities ?p? t?? ????t?? (s?ept???) ? ta ?pt?a, ?a? ?at? p??a? e????se?? ???at??a? ta d?af???? to ????/?pt?a ?a???s?, ?????? ??at?st?? ?t?. Before of composition,
discusses various Dionysius and concerning the verb forms he says: esta? ta ???a p?te?a ??e?tt? ?a??a???e?a ??fe???e?a, a? d? t??e? pt?se?? ed?a? ???eta?, ?a? p??a? pa?e?fa????and after the spaced words he refers
(voice) and d?af??a? ?????? (tenses) respectively. By he will have us understand the moods104). Of e????se??, then, with the testimony course, t??e? is a vague term but the similarity of Macrobius is striking, the use of pt?s?? looks Stoic too105), and in these relies on Stoic ideas. heavily pages Dionysius All in all, we have more testimonies for a Stoic theory of moods Each in itself may be explained than Pinborg away as due suggests. to misunderstanding (Anecd. Oxon. e.g.) but put together they offer a convincing methodological such. Whether ???at??a? picture point these of there of view having been such a theory. better to accept it is therefore called e????se?? is not clear. and/or From them a as
moods
were
the other is offered by Anecd. Dionysius Oxon. etc., but this may be the case because they used their own term. Even if Stoics used the term e????s??, it had a much wider In Anal. pr. 40, 31 ff. quotes sense also107), for Alexander Aphrod. Stoics108) as asserting that S????t?? ap??a?e ???????ta? ???? ?p?
or by yet another name106), give the second designation,
pt?se?? and Macrobius
104) Koller 36 even connects these forms with the s???ata ???e?? of Aristotle, but I prefer to think of Stoic influence because of the other terms. 105) Forptosis see Pinborg 80-2. In c.v. 5, 9, p. 26, 10 ff. (fri p??? t??t??? ?????? ... ?? te t??? ???as? f???tte?? ??a ta ???a t?? ???????????? ???ta? ?a? ta pa?e?fat??a t?? apa?e?f?t??) the terms pa?e?fat???/?pa???fata may have to do with moods. Steinthal II 274 explains both passages of Dion. Hal. thus, that the ???? are 'die Pr?sentia', whereas the other verb forms (?pt?a) "sich zuerst in e????se??, Modi, und diese sich in ?????? sondern". 106) We shall see in par. 12 that in the Sch.il. of Aristonicus t? p??sta?t???? etc. (se. (&??a)is used. 107) Often in Ap. D. this word seems to be used for categories other than mood, perhaps even, in a general way, for any inflected form. So Schneider Index s.v., but see note 139. 108) See A. C. Lloyd, Definite Propositions in Brunschwig 289 ff.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT t?? Here S????t?? ap????s?e?. of "flexion". Apollonius' meaning explained as confusing the two s??a????e??? (?at??????a) a third name. giving If it is accepted how the verb
337
??????e?? points to the can best be testimony, finally, sides of s??a???? and (???a) and need not be taken as
respectively, had
a theory of moods, we may ask which ones they were. On the many they distinguished For basis of the text of Anecd. Oxon. 3, 267 the answer is 'seven'. and in connection notates that with some a note on the form this classify people he adduces three reasons, perative; here: the person because who orders puts himself (?p?t??eta?) He ends his note as follows: t??e?ta? among those who are ordered. t????? a?t?? t?? the author anfe????e? form as a first person imthe first of which is relevant
that Stoics
?? St????? ?p??et???? a???? e????s?? ?p? ta? e ?a? t?? ??a???t???? ???? ????? ???t??at????, e????se??109) ?????? ept? e?s?? a? e????se??110). ?? pa?' ??e????? p? e?? '??d??????;, The same kind of information and the same example recur in for the ?p??et??? e????s?? (ibid. 1, 104) whereas lines with fe????e? and ?te????e? (//. 2, 140 and The usual five, of course, are quoted. are 6, 170 respectively) e????s?? ???st???, ?p?ta?t???, p??sta?t???, e??t??? and apa???fat??. we have indications that the Stoics did not discuss the inHowever, finitive as a separate mood on the same level as the others, but as of the verbal act an sich111). Moreover, the distinction of the subjunctive as a mood cannot have been done on the basis of the name autotele lekta, for in ancient grammar this mood is always being said to be restricted to sentences on conjunctions like ???. dependent Whereas Stoics paid much attention to constructions with the con-
Epimerismi Homeri two other Homeric
109) S. R. Slings proposes ?p?pro ?p?, but ?p? c. ace. meaning 'besides' seems possible, cp. Sophocles, Lexicon s.v. 6 and 13. 110) 'The Stoics add the hypothet. mood as a different one to the five moods; in the same way the mood of interrogation, that is to say, of question, ... Thus they have seven moods'. Steinthal's report (II 272) that the Peripatetics (!) did not recognize the subjunctive and the infinitive and replaced those by ???t??at???? and ???t???? is wrong, and influenced his own views unduly. 111) Ap. D., synt. 43, 15 ff. Cp. Nuchelmans 101 f., Pinborg 91 and Fran?oise in Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Le style sto?cienet la tiparemphasis>> Brunschwig 425 ff. The latter shows that to indicate the infinitive by apa???fat?? would be Stoic. See also the text of Dion. Hal. quoted in n. 105.
338
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT that those 7, 71), we have no indications considered For these reasons by them112). seem in saying to be wrong that the Stoics D.L. with our had
e? (e.g. junction ??? were ever testimonies
seven moods. distinguished As we have seen, according to Macrobius, the Stoics considered the indicative as a separate mood. Perhaps they called it ?p?fa?statement that the e????s?? ???st??? is also t????, for Apollonius' called ?p?fa?t???113) exmay view at Stoics114). We lack, however, plicit evidence moods, but, of course, used the same names have a reason of the optative distinction and imperative this may be due to the possibility that Stoics later grammarians did not and, therefore, to comment on this. Nevertheless, one would expect on a Stoic
that the optative mood had been called ??at????; perhaps in Latin the modus deprecativus reflects this name115). grammar As to the Stoic views on the meaning and function of the moods, we may come somewhat here, too, much of what further, although I shall say is rather suggestive of a possible Stoic influence than in the way of proof. In this respect it is very tempting to bring the various generic termini back to Stoic origin. ????es??, which in later not times is the technical term for voice, is to Apollonius Dyscolus restricted to this meaning; he uses it "f?r die spezifisch verbalen yet Sprachinhalte neten,M16) (voice), and in zu Gegen?berstellung of e?e???t??? can speak ?????? den c.q. nominal bezeichd???es?? pa??t??? with which
??????? d???es?? (tense),
d???es?? (mood),
112) See my Studies I. There too can be found other designations for this mood, none of which are relevant to our subject. Steinthal's argument (II 272) on the distinction of the subjunctive as a prerequisite for the distinction of moods in general does not allow for a development of a theory which is not yet adequate. 113) For this reading instead of ?p?fa?t??? (Uhlig) see Schneider Tractatus143. Cp. the opposition ?p?fa?t????-p?s?at???? in pron. 27, 16. 114) Synt. 346, 5 f. We can imagine that ???st??? e????s??would be thought to be a subclass of ?p?fa?t??? e???., because a????ata ???s???a are ta ?at? de???? ??fe???e?a (SVF 2, 205). Cp. SVF 2, p. 102, 13 f. 115) Cp. Clemens Ars grammatica, ed. J. Tolkiehn (Philol. Suppl. 20, 3) 1928, ? 104, 1. 14 ff. 116) R. Camerer, Die Behandlung der Partikel dev in den Schriften des Apollonios Dyskolos, Hermes 93 (1965), 193. Cp. E. A. Hahn, Apollonius Dyscolus on mood, chez Apollonius TAPhA 82 (1951), 29-48; F. Lambert, Le termeet la notion de d???es?? Dyscolus, in J. Collart et al., Varron grammarienantiqueet stylistiquelatine, Paris 1978, 245-52. He distinguishes five usages (voice, tense, mood, transitivity and disposition in general).
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT term
339
reminds
he usually use of d???es?? couples e????s??117). This general one of Choeroboscus' statement that by ot pa?a??? both
I mention e????se?? and d?a??se?? were called d?a??se??118). Finally, the definition of e????s?? with a strong Stoic reminiscence: "?????s?? ??? s???a p???? t?? ?p? t? f???? ????s?? ??afa???? ????? seems to show t?ep??????119) (G.G. ? 3, 399, 30 f.), which definition the same vague and broad idea of Verbalinhalt as d???es?? has for Apollonius120). In the case of interest: of the individual con. 226, 16 is moods, Apollonius, ????? d? ?a? t?? f???s?f?? e?? ??ap???s?? fas? t?? t?? ?a??t? ?a? e?? p?e???a ??a pa?a?a????es?a?, t? ?a? ? ???afa ?a? e?? ?????? ?pa???? t?? ?a? ?? t? The to mean that this that Stoics are meant seems probability of the occurrence of the word ?pa????. The that the indicative in itself indicates ?pa????, feature is enhanced by the addition of the
e??t?se??
s???at??es?? ?a? ????afa121). great122), passage reality, seems and
also because
particle123). The same
informs us about a view on the repetitive or passage of ??a in a question, function but does not indicate that stressing a separate mood of question had been distinguished. This, we have is done in the testimonies of Anecd. Oxon. and Choeroboscus. seen, On the basis tion kind of the example is the mood of p?s?a, of questions. Although of quesfor p? e?? '??d??????; to this belongs the adjective a?a???t???? is not found one would say that this mood
117) His paraphrases of verbal forms are interesting (synt. 44, 2 ff. pe??pate? ???f?? ? ???sat? pe??pate?????f??a, pe??pat??? ... ? ???at? pe??pate?????f??a) for they are in conformity with the definition of e.g. ?e?t?? p??sta?t????, p????a d ?????te? p??st?ss??e? (D.L. 7, 67). 118) G.G. IV 2, 5, 4 f. 119) "Mood' is a form displaying a movement of the soul which turns itself towards something'. 120) Cp. the use of e????s?? in Schol. DTh. 518, 17 (t? ???at? s???pt??s? (se. ?? St?????) t?? ?et???? e????s??a?t?? ???at?? ?a????te?) and 356, 11 (t? ??? ???a ?at??????a ?????te?, t?? d? ?et???? e?????a ???at??). 121) 'Some philosophers, too, maintain that ??a is used to repeat a question, in the same way as (?a? in) ?a? ????. is used to express a higher degree of assent and ?a( in ?a? ????. to indicate a higher degree of reality'. 122) Cp. Ammonius In de interpr. 43, 2 ff. ?? ?p? t?? St??? ?a? ?? t??t??? ?????????te? ?? t?? ??a??at???? ?et???te?, and Philo De congr. erud. gratia 146-50 on the close link between Stoics and grammarians. 123) Synt. 347, 2 Ap. D. uses the usual term: ??????e?????? fa?e? ? ???afa.
340 in the
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT Gramm.
is absent from LSJ?, the verb Graeci12*)?and a judicial indicates and examination, which ??a????e?? questioning actions are closely to wh-questions. related a further However, distinction is absent, we have more testimonies for a although So Apollonius separate mood of question: (synt. 349, 1 ff.) says that when no longer used in an affirmative sense, the ???st??? e????s?? looses its name also, for it comes under interrogation (?pe??t?s?? He does not explicitly t?? p?a???t??) when we say ????afa?; use the name e??t??at??? does, as we have e????s?? but Choeroboscus seen125). On the Latin side we first have Varr? De Ling. lat. 10, 32 whose species declinatuum no. 3-6 are rogandi, respondendi, optandi and imperandi126) and later e.g. Victorinus (G.L. VI 199, 23) mentions as an eighth mood the percunctativus, exemplified by legitne? If with we are allowed Barwick a Stoic source to assume for Varr?'s distinction, testimonies clusion About this locus and those in Anecd. Oxon. are the clearest conof a Stoic distinction of this mood, but Barwick's
can be quoted. more texts e????s?? on ?p??et??? when starting the discussion Apollonius the question mood has first person forms whether the imperative this he says, had accepted people, 8). Some (synt. 359, 4-365, and quoted fe????e? s?? ???s? f???? ?? pat??da ?a?a? (//. possibility ?a? ?d??a? (Od. 13, 2, 140) and a??' a?e d? ta ????at' a?????s? ?p??et??? speaks about 215). Apollonius disagrees on rational grounds, and?this is
is very the
doubtful127).
124) ??????s?? twice only in ??. D. synt. 411, 12 and pron. 27, 27; ??a????e?? once pron. 25, 19, in all cases in connection with ???t?s?? or pe?s??. Ammonius gramm. /./. (see n. 32) quotes the philosopher or the jurist Potamon as maintaining that ???t., pe?s?? and ??????s??differ, ???t?s?? ??? ??? ?st? ? s??t???? ?p????s?? apa?t??sa, pe?s?? d? ?a???? p???e?? apa??e??a, ??????s??d* ?p?deest???? ?????s??. The last words view at something like reexamination of witnesses. For Potamon see F. Susemihl, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. i.d. Alexandrinerzeit,Leipzig 1891-2 (Hildesheim 1965), II 309 and 512. 125) IV 2, 232, 4 ff. Priscian G.L. Ill 235, 17 f. mentions the use of indicatives in questions (dubitativus vel interrogativi) but does not speak of a separate mood. 126) The other two being species temporalisand speciespersonarum.Cp. 9, 95. 127) Barwick 45 and 50. D. Fehling, GGA 212 (1958), 164-5 declines, Siebenborn 101 f. accepts Barwick's starting-point (34), that to the Stoics e????s??includund ed both flexion and derivation (E. Siebenborn, Die Lehrevon derSprachrichtigkeit ihren Kriterien. Studien zur antiken normativen Grammatik (Stud. ?. ant. Philos. 5), Amsterdam 1976). Cp. H?rtung 293 ff. who even denies that Varr? here is concerned with a grammatical system.
341
important?suggests into one (361, 7-8).
two moods that these people have combined and finally, He goes on to speak of two moods, to a certain extent he follows the people whom he had taken to task, when he says that both moods have filled the places left open in 8 ff.). Although he recognizes here forms such as either (364, as belonging fe????e? work he does not seem accept depends suspects view129). use of ?p??et???? is most times explained as meaning I have argued for the meaning but elsewhere 'counsel'hortatory', This meaning well to Apollonius' ing, suggesting'130). applies very Apollonius' words and (232, 21 ff.), but Priscian both followers of Apollonius Macrobius, too, use hortativus and exhortativas to translate At any rate, as we have seen, ?p??et????131). the evidence that a separate mood called ?p??et??? was recognized is rather strong. So far, though meagre, Stoics have distinguished moods the evidence moods, strongly suggests at least the indicative that and the the and those of Choeroboscus this to a mood of their own, in the rest of his refuses to to do so. Choeroboscus explicitly and because Choeroboscus much very mood128), on another the ???at????, of Apollonius' works, Uhlig that in this work Apollonius had not yet come to this
of question and suggestion. the They will have recognized and the optative as such, too, and evidence for these imperative because there was no difference in opinion about may be lacking them. ta?t???? As to the imperative, I observe that the examples of t? p??s?e?t?? contain second person singular imperatives only. of ?e?t?? ?p??et????, such as ?p??e?s?? Now, the examples t?? ??? of ?t?., are a far cry from ???f??e? etc., which serve as examples the e????s?? ?p??et???. But Theon Progymn. 89, 23 ff. gives a passage with ?p????e?a to illustrate his category of ?p??et????. starting Would it be possible that third person imperatives, which in Greek value, together with first person adhorvery often have a concessive 128) G.G. IV 2, 233, 6 ff. 129) Uhlig on synt. 361, 7 ff. The '???at???? seems to be prior to the Syntaxis. 130) Studies 19 f. SteinthaTs report on ?p??et??? (II, 289 f.) is not quite right. 131) G.L. Ill 237, 6 and Rhet. Lat. Min. 617, 40. Perhaps influence from the close connection between ?p??et???? and pa?a???e?s?? in Stoic ethics? See M. Giusta o.e. (note 73).
342 tative
were ranked under a mood of suggestion? subjunctive I have found no evidence that forms in -t?/-s?? ever are However, otherwise than with d. as imperatives132). the infinitive as the absolute between act of the verb, the list of lekta and the list
taken there
Together are now many similarities of moods. But if my supposition of moods point for a distinction remaining a???e?t???? than further reader prevented When, that
that the list o? lekta was the startingis right, we have to account for the
lekta also, viz. p?s?a, ?e?t?? ?pap???t????, ???????, p??sand ?????? ?????at?. Otherwise we shall not advance scholars. At previous the difference between this I may remind the and s??a????e?a s??a????ta form and meaning. between point
correspondence in the definition of (&??a ?at??????a appears ?st? ????? ????? s??a???? ?s???et?? ?at??????a, 7, 58), ???a (D.L. this does not imply that the word was used for what we call Verbs' therefore, is usually translated and from ?at??????a by predicate'133) ???t?? a???e? 7, 64 it appears that in the following example the noun in the genitive belongs to the predicate S????t??? too134). in the physical can thus be paralleled world by more ?at??????a than verb forms only. Already Schoemann out that the pointed only. D.L. definition plicable prising adverb to time, and is, therefore, ??d??a omits any reference apto adverbs Given this interpretation it is not surtoo135). to Schol. DTh. that according the philosophers called the
a complete
Priscian ?at??????a. says that the Stoics put the adverbs the nomina as well as under verba et quasi adiectiva verborum among has it that the Stoics deemed adverbs tradition nominabant. Another not worth them to off-shoots mentioning; they likened (pa?af??d? seem contradictory but are in ?a? ?p?f????d?)136). The testimonies when we interpret them as follows: the Stoics, at least inharmony the adverb as a separate and did not recognize itially, category
132) Unless ??. D. synt. 363, 7 ?. (?? d? ??? de?te?a ?a? t??ta ?p??a????? t?? t????t?? ?p??et????, cp. 365, 4 ff.) hints at such a view. In itself p??s?pa e??a? this would have been in accordance with Stoic ideas on ?e?t?? ?p??et????. 133) E.g. Long (1971 art.), 78. 134) Cf. U. Egli, Stoic Syntax and Semantics in Brunschwig 135 ff., esp. 143. 135) Schoemann 158. To Aristotle (De Int. 16 b 8 and Poet. 1457 a 14 f.) an inherent time-indication is essential to (&??a. 136) G.G. I 3, 95, 20 and 356, 15 ff.; Priscian G.L. Ill 54, 10.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT treated reason tells us these they words were as concomitants
343
category ?es?t??. These
(D.L. beside
mainly of verbs137), for which But Diocles some as of no importance. by a sixth made that one Stoic, 7, 56) Antipater, and called this one the usual five parts of speech, seen
that by this term he meant adverbs138). It is very probable show that the posiwith their explanation, data, together it was to have changed. seems tion of the adverb Gradually as an adverb, but initially it was seen as a part of ???a recognized as a part of ?at??????a. it was interpreted because 137) Cp. ??. D. adv. 125, 21 e?p??e? a?t? (the adverbs) d????e? ep??et??? e??a? t?? ????t??. 138) See G. F. Schoemann, Opuse, acad. IV (1871), 221 ff. and Redeth. 160 f?. He asserts that Antipater called adverbs such because they stand between nouns and verbs, but this is an inference from Priscian /./. and is not found in D.L. According to Pinborg 100 Antipater had in mind only the adverbs which were derived from nouns. This, however, is not in D.L. either but is based on Simplicius In Aristot. categ. 388, 26 (SVF 2, 173), where the trios e^??-?at??????a-?es?t?? is illustrated by f????s??/?f??s???, f???e??/?f???e?? and f???????/?f?????, and on the species of adverbs in -?? called ep?????ata ?es?t?t?? by the grammarians, e.g. Techne 74, 3. But though Simplicius discusses Stoic views here, one wonders to what extent this text is a safe guide to Stoic terms. Ibid. 37, 10 (cp. 208, 10) he says d?e? ?a? ta? ??? (!) ?a??????a? ?es?t?ta? pt?se?? ??????? (?? pa?a???), ???? ... a?d?e??? ... ?a???. Neither Alexander nor Ammonius has the word ?es?t??, though their information is almost identical to what Simplicius says before this passage (37, 10). Varr? De Ling. lat. 8, 44 has a pars adminiculandi, illustrated by but his idiosyncratic approach to the parts of speech (cp. D. Fehdocteand commode ling, Vano und die grammatischeLehre von derAnalogie, Glotta 36 (1957), 55 ff.) is no guarantee for a Stoic origin, pace M. Pohlenz, Die Begr?ndungder abendl. Sprachlehre durch die Stoa, NGG NF 3, 6 (1939), 167, and Barwick 35. I have found no reference, except in Schoemann 161 and Hagius 184, to the interesting fact that in Sch. //. Aristonicus several times uses ?es?t?? in connection with adverbs without any restriction (?e?st?, ?????, ta????, ?p????d??)and on one occasion ep?????a. This latter passage (Sch. 20, 13), therefore, would seem not to contain Aristarchean terminology. The formulation proves that in these places ?es?t?? is the generic word, e.g. Sch. 9, 446b ?t? ?? ???e? ???? ?at? t?? ?????a? ???a ?at? ?es?t?ta ??t? t?? ?e?st? ????ta (cp. Sch. 17, 559a; 14, 418 a and 23, 287a). In other, non-Aristonician scholia the word is used in the same way (Schh. 8, 133; 18, 410d; 19, 273-4; 24, 657c1) or indicates a species of adverbs, those in -?? (Schh. 4, 22; 15, 277; 16, 415; 24, 657c2). This sense of ?es?t?? is not found in LSJ. ?p?????a is common in the annotations of Herodianus, the son of Apollonius Dyscolus, who does not use ?es?t??. The use of ?es?t?? in the Aristonician scholia seems the best proof that Antipater was thinking of adverbs without restricting them to those in -??. Interesting is Ammonius gramm. de adf voc. diff. gl. 19: a??e ?a? ?fe??? d?af??e??t? ??? ??? ?st? ?pa???fat?? p??s?p?? ... d?? t? a??e est?? ep?????a ?t?. The wording ?pa?. p??s. suggests a close link with the infinitive, t? ?pa???fat??.
344
is right, we have a vague reflection of the Stoic definition of ep?????a (adv. 119, 5 f.), ????? t?? ?? t??? ???as? where ????t?? ?at??????sa ?t?., e????se?? will reflect ?at??????a in Stoic sense139). A more clear ?at??????sa view in Apollonius' reminiscence group of adverbs is synt. 284, 4 ff., where Apollonius speaks of a specific dsa s??a????e??? ?????se?? ep?d??eta?, ???? eG?e ? remarks that Apollonius' is exclusively definition I think he and though others disagree,
If this conclusion
a?e. Schoemann fit for this kind
is right140). Gerth "Modaladverbien"
parallels ?? would then have been ?e?t?? ??????? or ???t????,
called by K?hnergroup of adverbs, would form a good candidate for the 141), to the lekta we were looking for. Particles such as ?? and as carrying the meaning of a explained if we may use the name under which the
of adverb, This restricted
classified these words (see next page). The quotation grammarians from con. 226, 16 (? 11 c) would also fit within this picture, but it does not say that ??a etc. are adverbs. from con. 225, 8 However, onwards reacts against the view of t??e? that ??a is not Apollonius a s??des???, and in this context the quotation about t???? ?a? t?? The opinion that ??a is not a syndesmos because occurs. f???s?f?? it does not bind together with Stoic views (s??de?) is in agreement on this category142). This view comes down to this: a syndesmos connects 7, parts of the ?????, i.e. ????a, p??s????? and ?p?f??? (D.L. in speech (ibid. 58 and 76), all of which are complete lekta expressed from the category 68-9). But we do not know whether the exclusion of syndesmoi led to the inclusion in the category of (ad)verbs.
139) ?? ??. D. ?at????e?? no longer has the restricted sense of 'affirmer d'un sujet' but a much wider one of 'affirmer d'une chose quelconque'. So M. Baratin, Sur l'absence de l'expressiondes notions de sujet et de pr?dicatsdans la terminologie grammaticaleantique, in J. Collart et. al., Varron,205-9. This wide sense will have been caused by Stoic usage, for which see Nuchelmans 72 ff., whose remarks at 48 f. and 124 would have helped Baratin. 140) Opuse, acad. IV 228. R. F. L. Skrzecka, Die Lehredes Apollonius Dyscolus von den Redetheilen,Progr. K?nigsberg 1853, 4 takes ?????s??here not in the restricted sense of mood but of any verbal form made by flexion (see also Schneider comm. 138), because Ap. D. recognizes other adverbs too, e.g. ???????. But this means rectifying Ap. D. unnecessarily. selbst, den Gedanken 141) II 114: "Adverbien, welche ... auf die Aussage bezogen werden und denselben n?her bestimmen, indem sie das Verh?ltnis des zu der ?berzeugung des Redenden angeben". Examples are ??, Gedankens ??, ???, ?s??, ??a. 142) To be discussed in another article.
345
of lekta other than about a possible equivalent My last suggestion We have of verbs concerns the ?e?t?? ?????? ?????at?. the category and 8) that this lekton falls outside the group of axobserved (??7 iomata in as far as it does not differ from an axioma in speech act but does In ? 7 I drew atnot belong to it pa?? t???? ?????? p?e??as???. to a link with the expletive These syndesmoi formed particles. an elusive group, for how can they be called syndesmoi if they do not tention at all? And if they can be left out easily, does this mean that were debated in Stoic These questions they have no meaning? con. 248, 1 ff. and 214, 4 ff. show. When circles too, as Apollonius Stoics ascribe an emotional impact to a ?e?t?? d?. ?????at? with ?e or ?? (D.L. also have classified 7, 67), ?e as a they may connect pa?ap?????a. At any rate, Apollonius' remarks that ?e can indicate 253, 6) and is often expletive ? ?p?tas?? ?a??as??? ?e??t?ta (con. of this lekton. This with the definition (250, 1 ff.), are in agreement was found in the exthat for this lekton a counterpart suggestion does not imply that the whole theory concerning pletive particles these syndesmoi goes back to Stoic sources nor that this group is the It is only meant as a pointer to an area where the only counterpart. could be found. counterpart I now Dionysius list passages Thrax143) from which whether picture. and the Techne ascribed to Apollonius about adverbs and contain information quoted before or not, and which fit in
particles, expletive with the sketched
Apollonius: 1. Con. 226, 2. Ibid. ??a: 3. Schneider a strict tains 17 e?? ?????? ?pa???? t?? ?a? ?? t? ?a? ????afa.
e?? ??ap???s?? t?? e??t?se??. comm. 30 shows that on the whole distinction between ???t?s??
not e??t??at????. though he uses p?s?at????, 2 and s.v. ???t??at????. 83, 4. Many times e??e is a standard example of 'an ep?????a in connection with an optative', e.g. adv. 128, 22.
mainApollonius pe?s?? (p?s?a), Cp. Uhlig on Techne and only used
143) To list these similarities here can be done without any implication pro or contra its authenticity, although I am inclined to accept the view that it is not authentic.
346 5. The
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT same 'which is only used with the im??e, It is called adv. 123, ???e?e?st????, (e.g. 10). in ???e?e?se??, commands because of its presence (synt. in adv. 123, it is also called pa?a?e?e?sa??? However, is true mood is mensyntaxis with the imperative ta ?p??et??? (synt. 359, 4 ff. cp. ? 11 c), discussing sublines containing ??e + an adhortative quotes for
perative
mood'
presumably 365, 10 f.). 10 where tioned.
its exclusive
But when
6. Apollonius a few pages which fact he typically ignores junctive (?a???e?a), Does ??e pa?a?e?e?st???? reflect the Stoic ?e?t?? later (365, 10). ?p??et????? 7. Synt. 73, 8 ?? and ?? are designated 8. Finally, ?e he says (con. concerning ?e??t?ta ? ?p?tas?? ?a??as???. as ???t???. 253, 16) that it indicates
Techne: which is reflected Uhlig on 39, 1 points out the Stoic distinction in (d???a) ???t??at???? d? ?st??, d ?a? pe?st???? ???eta?, t? ?at' ???? t?? ?t?. ???t?s?? ?e???e???, 10. 77, 4 ta d? e???? s??a?t???, ???? e??e, a??e, ??a?e. ???? e?a, a?e, 11. 82, 1 ta d? pa?a?e?e?se?? f??e 12. 83, 1 ta d? e??t?se?? ???? p??e?, p??. p????a, 9. 13. e. 84, 4-5 ta d? ?p???t???, The data on a Stoic on moods ???? ?? and ta d? ?at???t???, ???? ??.
cluded
which intheory of ???a and ?at??????a, to me that the Stoics and adverbs, suggest not only in the gramof the ?e?t? a?t?te?? put the counterparts matical moods but also in that group of adverbs which according to Apollonius ep?d??eta?, ?????se?? (synt. 284, 4 ff.) s??a????e??? views section The list given in the foregoing particles144). and possible traces of these Stoic views on adverbs for all lekta In the following list all probable pendants
and in expletive shows probable
and particles. autotele are found.
144) Koller 232 had already observed "wie die Logos-klassen der Stoiker alle mit 'Adverbien' im weiten Sinne ausger?stet sind; wir finden dieselbe Gruppierung, nicht der Logoi, wohl aber der 'Adverbien' teilweise bei Dionysius Thrax".
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT ?e?t?? 1. ?e?t?? ?p?fa?t???? 2. e??t??a "? 3. p?s?a 4. ?. ?pap???t????-1 5. ?. ??at???? 6. ?. p??sta?t???? 7. ?. ??????? 8. ?. p??sa???e?t???? 9. ?. ?p??et???? 10. ?. d????? t? ?????at? "?????s??* e???. ?p?fa?t??? e. a?a???t??? e. e??t??? ?. p??sta?t??? e. ?p??et??? (?)
347
?pf???a/?a?ap? ????a ?a? e?? ?????? ?pa???? difference between ?p. and p. maintained, ??a e?? ??ap???s?? t. ???t. (e??e) ta t?? e???? ??e ??-/pa?a?e?e?st???? ta ???t??? ??e pa?a?e?e?st???? (?) ? e ?e??t?ta ? ?p?tas?? ?a??as??? d????.
* For the infinitive and the subjunctive see ? lie. for the about the adverbs and particles accounts suggestion no more moods were distinguished. The combination why with adverbs typical of a p?s?a or an of e.g. the mood of question could express these lekta. For this reason one mood of quese??t??a tion was sufficient. The same procedure could be followed for other The as ??????? and p??sta?t????. is missing, p??sa???e?t???? probably lekta such verb form. However, Trypho, amples 12. The ? of this In what form ?, of course, was probably not as the vocative the form lekton lack kind because to ?e?t?? A real equivalent of the absence of a be said to function as such.
reason
could
but taken
as an adverb before recognized of the article; moreover, most ex?145).
of work and when was this application of the a system of moods made? One may be inclined to theory of lekta to think of Stoic t???a? pe?? f????, as we know from D.L. which, 7, and of Babylon 230-150 55-6, were written by Diogenes (ab. B.C.) his pupil Archedemus. But in principle the treatise pe?? ???e?? ?a? of Antipater of Tarsus, t?? ?e??????? who died about 140 B.C., is a better book candidate shown because Stoic it was a better would be therefore in those with dealing because candidate also lekta146). This as Frede has on lekta matters to several
convincingly rather than
titles of writings
syntax was developed him on lexis1*7). Following in which Chrysippus presumably
in works I refer discussed
145) Cp. ??. D. synt 62, 6 ff. and Uhlig a.l. 146) Cp. ???eta? d? t? p????ata, ? d? ?a? ?e?t? t?????e? (D.L. 7, 57). 147) Frede (1977) and (1978).
348 of syntax
in a logical context: ?e?? t?? st???e??? t?? ????? ?a? t?? e , pe?? t?? s??t??e?? t?? d and pe?? ?e??????? ?e??????? t?? s??t??e?? ?a? st???e??? t?? ?e??????? ? (D.L. 7, 192-3). Thus, could have founded the Stoic system of grammatical Chrysippus moods, author. however, having The including I think but one of his successors also may be its adverbs, the latter possibility more likely. In that case, looks an improbable candidate because of his Antipater
the adverb as a separate part of speech. recognized date of origin must be prior to ab. 160 B.C. if one wishes of terms such as t? p??sta?t???? to explain the presence and t? and so of Aristarchus, as in the scholia of Aristonicus, ?pa???fat?? due to Stoic that Frede's this material I may remark reviewing a pupil both of that Apollodorus of Athens, suggestion and of Aristarchus, intermediated between the two Diogenes schools and transferred Stoic grammatical to Alexandria knowledge influence. Before has much mentioned in its favour148). D.L. are 7, 64 ?? pe?? ?p????d???? in connection of ?at??????a; with the definition perhaps
is referred to149). this Apollodorus In order to determine of a system of moods in early the presence Alexandrian our main sources are the scholia on the Ilscholarship iad taken t?? from Aristonicus' pe?? pe?? s??e??? ????d?? and Didymus' of which contain both many ???sta??e??? d?????se??, I can be rather brief on this of Aristarchean fragments origin150). about depart Aristarchus' and gramterminology from Friedlaender's substantially
point as my conclusions do not matical theory (7 ff.). Very often Aristarchus
Homeric explains usage of verb forms by This enallage of mood, called e?a??a?? ???at??. assuming the right form next to the he almost always illustrates by putting A a?t? t?? a??ta?. Homeric one, thus: Sch. //. 11, 192 a1 a?eta? a change few times only terms are used which point to a knowledge of moods.
148) Even though in this way Frede (1977), 52 circumvents the problem of the suspected authenticity of the Techne. A similar suggestion is made by Hagius 172 ff. 149) At least von Arnim did not put this passage in the section on Apollodorus of Seleucia (SVF 3, p. 259 ff.). 150) Edited by resp. L. Friedlaender, G?ttingen 1853 (Amsterdam 1965) and M. Schmidt, Leipzig 1854 (Amsterdam 1964). I cite from Erbse's ed. of Sch. //.
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT Not when similar cian all scholia the which are ascribed
349
Wortlaut
a reliable wording
are qua to Aristonicus, however, to Aristarchean guide terminology, especially of a scholion from others on totally deviates
to Friedlaender, Aristoniaccording and only on the use of t? p??sta?t???? II 107 argues for the acceptance Steinthal of t? t? ?pa???fat??151). But scholia with t? ???st???? and e??t???? also as Aristarchean152). subjects. information Therefore, is reliable are later formulations. t? ?p?ta?t????153), very probably, notable seems the use of ???a, and not e????s?? (which does and consequently, that of the neuter cur in these scholia), not ? p??sta?t???)154). (t? p??sta?t????, II 107 and 273 From these facts Steinthal chus did not have close inferred Rather not ocgender
that Aristar-
of moods, a real knowledge though he was very of his opinion to it155). This view is a consequence that the and infinitive is essential to a distinction of subjunctive recognition of moods, but then he argues too much from the final result and does not admit of stages in which foundations could have been of the three terms can better be explained as laid156). The presence of a knowledge of the Stoic distinctions and, of course, not the signs as if Aristarchus has made a system of its own. other way round, in terminology157). In that case one would expect fewer similarities 151) E.g. Sch. 3, 459 (with the rule on Homeric usage: ?t? s?????? t? ?pa?e?f?t? ??t? t?? p??sta?t???? ???ta? "??????); 2, 10; 4, 64-6; Od. 7, 222. 152) Sch. 23, 611 (Didymus) and 15, 571. The Didymus-scholion may reflect Didymus' own terminology, however, and Erbse a.I. ascribes Sch. 15, 571 to the authors of the exegetical scholia. But the addition at the end, ?? f?s?? ?????s???, may point in another direction if Dionysius Thrax, Aristarchus' pupil, is meant (K. Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis horner?as,Leipzig3 1882, 7). 153) Sch. 1, 232 (in comparison with 2, 242); 2, 215c and 10, 36b. 154) E.g. Sch. 4, 539a; 5, 311; 13, 343 and 17, 70. 155) His argument based on the use of t? p??sta?t???? (se. |&??a) instead of ? p??sta?t??? ?????s?? is demolished by the identical use in the Epimerismi Homeri {Anecd. Oxon. I, passim), Suidas, scholia on Sophocles etc., which texts stem from a period when the theory of moods was well-established. 156) As is done by e.g. G. Calboli o.e. (note 99). 157) H. Erbse, Zur normativenGrammatikder Alexandriner,Glotta 58 (1980), 244: "Die skizzierten Versuche Aristarchs (bzw. Aristarchs und seiner Vorg?nger) setzen umfangreiche grammatische Kenntnisse voraus. Die Paradigmata f?r Deklination und Konjugation mu?ten in allen Einzelheiten bekannt sein". I disagree, at least insofar as this would imply a full-blown grammatical theory (cp. Studies I, 2082). See also W. Ax, Aristarch und die "Grammatik", Glotta 60 (1982), 96-109.
350 This
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT of any trace of in the scholia. he would only to him
is not invalidated by the absence explanation Stoic moods of question and suggestion the typically of Aristarchus' In view of the character comments had cause used to refer Homer had
have mood have and
if according to e.g. t? ?p??et????, of a more a form of this mood instead he had wished that technical of the adhortative to use a technical terms for moods
and if, moreover, already observed with forms
regular term. We
and lines
Od. 13, 215, see p. 340) have these forms. Thus, there was no reason to use these terms. explains in circles After Aristarchus the system of moods was developed was admitted The subjunctive as a mood, and the of grammarians. infinitive
subjunctive no Aristonician
rarely, (e.g. //. 2, 140 scholion which
occur
put on a level with the others158). This process took time in cannot be pinned down as having occurred and its completion of Aristarchus' Thrax. The Techne the lifetime Dionysius pupil, ascribed much to him later contains the traditional the in the form 13. in which we have system Techne from of five moods, but 6 on it is of a par.
date159). To sum up the main results of this article, I think that I have conclusions: the following either proven or shown as probable foundation with its theoretical the theory of peripatetic e?d? ????? a) is not older than 5th cent. A.D. (? 3) b) the (??4 c) these list and ?e?t? of Stoic 5). be interpreted as representing (? 10, cp. ? 6). lekta are neither why the non-axiomatic can best forces of these kinds implies intended il?e?t? a?t?te?? originally comprised ten kinds
locutionary d) the reasons
true nor false
vary (?7). e) the distinction
a rise in their status in rela-
158) Although some uneasiness about the position of the infinitive remained, as we see from Ap. D. synt. 43, 15 ff. 159) Though incorrect in details, Di Benedetto's exposition on this subject is still convincing pace Erbse, oc. 244 ff. and R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, Oxford 1968, 270 ff. (V. di Benedetto, Dionisio Trac?e la Technea lui attribuita, ASNP 27 (1958), 169 ff., 28 (1959), 87 ff. and La Technespuria, ibid. III 3 (1973), 797 ff.). In this connection I point out that Uhlig never fulfilled his promise (G.G. I 1, viii) to edit "totam recensionem esset, alteram, quae, qualisjere ab auctoretechne profec?a er repraesentura at."
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT tion to Aristotle's This had already overlooked as verbal
351 with dif-
s???ata
???e??.
begun the
Chrysippus (? 8). the Aristotelian commentators f) Because ferences between the Peripatetic e?d? ????? and the Stoic ?e?t? a?t?te?? as action
thought,
expressions they could reduce
these lekta to their species (?? 9 and 10). and a strong plausibility, There is some evidence, that these lekta g) a Stoic distinction were the starting-point for of moods, which moods as well as a specific comprised grammatical group of adverbs h) The 160 birth B.C. and some particles (? 11). of the Stoic system of moods In this way we can account scholia may be put prior to ab. for the presence of the on the Iliad which go back to Aristarchus
system
in those
(? 12)160).
1007
MC
Amsterdam,
Free
University
After acceptance of my MS for publication in nov. 1982 Postcript: attention Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der was drawn to K. H?lser, my ins Deutsche ?bersetzt und teilweise Stoiker, zusammengestellt, his comments Konstanz From on fr. 897 1982. kommentiert, = my text I quote: "Weil nun die stoische Unterscheidung von ( 3) und Bestimmungsfrage 'unter anderen BezeichEntscheidungsauch von den Peripatetikern wird [....], nungen getroffen ergibt da? die peripatetischen sich erstens, f?nf Redeformen mindestens sechs stoischen da? also die Rede von zehn stoischen entsprechen, Redeformen the evidence of Hulser's of the tradition use of relevant wrong (march irref?hrend of the Diocles views ist." This fragment, on the ten Stoic kinds runs counter to interpretation omits to explain the existence rebuttal H?lser's often are
see ?? 1-5. Apart texts is rather selective 1984).
etc. For my implicit from these objections, and his translations
160) I am grateful to Professor J. Mansfeld and my colleagues, Dr Elseline Vester and Dr S. R. Slings for their comments, and to Dr Pauline Allen for correcting my English.
352
STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT ABBREVIATIONS
Anecd. Oxon. - Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscr. bibl. oxoniensium, descrips. J. A. Cramer, 4 vols., Oxford 1835-37 (Amsterdam 1963). Ap.D. = Apollonius Dyscolus. His works (synt., adv. pron. coni.) are quoted after the edition in G.G. II 1-3, which includes the Index and the Tractatus by Schneider. Barwick = K. Barwick, Problemeder stoischen Sprachlehreund Rhetorik, Abh. Sachs. Ak. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 49, 3, Berlin 1957. Brunschwig = Les Sto?cienset leur logique, Actes du Colloque de Chantilly 1976, ?d. J. Brunschwig, Paris 1978. CAG = Commentarlain AristotelemGraeca, 23 vols., Berlin 1882 ff. dkP = Der kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike, 5 vols., Stuttgart 1964-75. D.L. = Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum,ed. H. S. Long, OCT 1964. Egli = U. Egli, Zur stoischenDialektik, Thesis, Basel 1967. Frede = M. Frede, Die stoische Logik, Abh. Ak. Wiss. Gott. Phil.-hist. Kl. 3, 88, G?ttingen 1974. Frede (1977) = id., The Origins of Traditional Grammar, in R. Butts ft J. Hintikka and Philosophy (eds.), Historical and PhilosophicalDimensions of Logic, Methodology of Science, Dordrecht 1977, 51-79. Frede (1978) = id., Principles of Stoic Grammar, in Rist 27-76. G.G. = Grammatici Graeci, edd. G. Uhlig et al., 4 vols., Leipzig 1867-1910 (Hildesheim 1965). G.L. = GrammaticiLatini, ed. H. Keil, 8 vols., Leipzig 1857-75 (Hildesheim 1961). Hagius = H. Hagius, The Stoic Theoryof the Parts of Speech, Thesis Columbia Univ. 1979 (Xerox 1981). H?rtung = H.-J. H?rtung, ?a?ep??e?a ???at??? bei Varr?, Glotta 51 (1973), 293-311. Kerferd = G. ?. Kerferd, The Problemof Synkatathesisand Katalepsis in Brunschwig 251-72. Koller? H. Koller, Die Anf?nge der griechischenGrammatik, Glotta 37 (1958), 5-40. Long (1971) = A. A. Long (ed.), Problemsin Stoicism, London 1971. Long (1971 art.) = id., Language and Thought in Stoicism in Long (1971), 75-113. Long (1974) = id., Hellenistic Philosophy, London 1974. Nuchelmans = G. Nuchelmans, Theoriesof the Proposition. Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity, North-Holland linguistic series 8, Amsterdam 1973. Pinborg=J. Pinborg, Classical Antiquity: Greece in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 13, 1 Historiography of Linguistics (The HagueParis, 1975) 69-126. Prantl = C. Prantl, Geschichteder Logik im Abendlande, Leipzig 1855 (Graz 1955). Rist = J. M. Rist (ed.), The Stoics, Major Thinkers Series 1, Berkeley-Los AngelesLondon 1978. Schmidt = R. Schmidt, Stoicorumgrammatica, Halle 1839 (Amsterdam 1967). nach denAlten, dargest. Schoemann ? G. F. Schoemann, Die Lehrevon den Redetheilen und beurteilt, Berlin 1862. Schol. DTh. = Scholia in Dionysii Thracis artemgrammaticam, ree. A. Hilgard, G.G. I 3. Schol. //. = Scholia Graecain Homeri Iliadem (Scholia vetera), ree. H. Erbse, 5 vols., Berlin 1969-77.
353
S.E. = Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos,rece. H. Mutschmann-J. Mau-K. Janacek, Leipzig 1912-6112. Steinthal = H. Steinthal, Geschichteder Sprachwissenschaft den Griechenund R?mern bei mit besonderer R?cksicht auf die Logik, 2 vols., Berlin2 1890-1. Studies I = D. M. Schenkeveld, Studies in the History of Ancient Linguistics I, Mnem. IV 36 (1983), 1-21. SVF = Stoicorum veterumfragmenta, ed. J. von Arnim, 4 vols., Leipzig 1905-24 (Stuttgart 1968) (quoted after volume and number of fragments). Techne= Dionysius Thrax Ars grammatica, ed. G. Uhl?g, G.G. I 1.

Stoic Speech Acts and Moods

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Stoic Speech Acts and Moods

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Studies in the History of Ancient Linguistics: II.

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXVII,

Fase. 3-4 (1984)

PERIPATETIC AND THE GRAMMATICAL BY D. M.

1. This the ancient cordingly

If only for chronological sion of Aristotle's s???ata

ject to be discussed Aristarchus. To a lesser treated

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT With Gudemann

with the art of elocu-

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

of speech, discussing superficially.

Antiquity refer to the passage knows this work7). 3. After Aristotle

on De Interpret. Brackets is found.

IV 5, 2, 9 ff.; 5, 5 ff.; 64, 21 ff. 3 (16, 16 and 19, 11 ff.). XVIII

7) In Aristot. de interp. comm., CAG IV 5, 12.

93 a 20 ff. (cp. z. kl. Philol. 28 ff. 95,

pr. I IV 6, 2, 2 ff.; on Aristotle

p??sta?t????, other times monius'

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

may be either ? e??t???? or ? presented,

?. p?s?at???? ?a? e??t??at????

(?. e??t????) ?e??????-> p??sta???

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT solution here is that in

and may ??????s??, more must contain

Nuchelmans e?d? ?????

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

For instance, in his treatment of their a number catalogues

300 There theory

rhetorical moods the

link between appears

theory Interpr. Ammonius ????? a????a,

between period of lekta has come into t??

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT Stoic

complex about what part whereas

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

original tend to use: Text (T)

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

^?< r~Z < C/3

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

occur; prose-quotations as scheme II shows34).

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

h-gj. < ?/1 d

m .22 c < -f CM 00 00 ? Sa? ? S o ?S S2?

s? < ? ft- (? g =* 00 S(?) CM -F

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

w > E i -3 g E e* co co ? ?4? ~* co co 3*H -CM "? *-<*?" ?; ^8 co co ^h CO j3 S; ?S il

3 S." S Si?? 2 * !, ^ o >? *S 3

"S ? 8 * -S 2 ?4 ?*? ?meo 8 io co y^ ?00?"8

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

will be true for the 542). Finally, and ???et????

Xenophon's quotations the mathematico-astronomical indicate There, whole 6. used the

Cyri in ? 4 and of ?p??et???? examples

It may be argued, the term d?af??a? various

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT sentences. the

or passion thought" to verbal restriction for the neutral from

usage "pragma stands viewed in abstraction

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT

further, argument be said to contain

The upshot concerned, the idea etc. pragma as containing

STOIC AND PERIPATETIC KINDS OF SPEECH ACT This

easy to intuit why e.g. "How cannot be classified as an Assertion,

w > E i -3 g E e* co co ? ?4? ~* co co 3H -CM "? -<*?" ?; ^8 co co ^h CO j3 S; ?S il