IV.2 Multifunctionality of δέ, τε, and καί

2.1 And-coordination

§1. This chapter explores a wide range of functions of δέ, τε, καί, and combinations involving them in historiographical discourse. [1] These particles appear the most often out of those used by the authors in our corpus. [2] They can all be translated in numerous contexts with “and.” However, they express different aspects of and-coordination, [3] ranging from quasi-asyndeton to adversative implications. [4]
§2. The “scope,” or range of a particle’s effect, varies for all of them: it can relate to full or parts of discourse acts, and to discourse moves, which may correspond to constituents of considerably different size. [5] Accordingly I will treat the three particles as affecting different segments of discourse, from single words and phrases, to clauses, to multi-clause units.
§3. By dealing with and particles we assume that they exist on a continuum with respect to two important distinctions. The first continuum ranges from propositional to non-propositional meanings. [6] That is to say, τε and καί may or may not modify content. And in English is open to the same variability. For example, in “they ate and drank,” “and” modifies content in that the same proposition without reference to drinking would mean something different. But in “and(,) here is what happened:,” “and” does not modify the content of whatever proposition follows “here is what happened”; rather, together with “here is what happened” it introduces a discourse unit whose clauses or sentences relate what happened (at a certain point, in a certain context). Finally, in “and it is a possession forever,” [7] “and” plays an intermediate role between linking the host clause with the preceding one (propositionally), and marking the host clause as a comment or a conclusion (non-propositionally). This continuum does not hold for δέ, which never modifies content. Whenever we associate δέ clauses with a strong sense of contrast, the contrast comes from the semantics of the co-text rather than from the particle δέ. [8]
§4. The second continuum is between the connective and the adverbial functions of δέ, τε and καί. Mithun (1988:345) states: “The lack of a clear distinction between adverbials and clause conjunctions is not unusual among languages.” With regard to and cognates, consider “as well” or “in addition”: grammatically these phrases function as adverbs, but at the same time they are used to add content not differently from the way and conjunctions do. A few years ago a sizable group of Hellenists working in Spain decided to label the subject of a joint research project “conjunctive adverbs.” The basic idea is that ancient Greek grammars tend to neglect the fact that a number of adverbs—which prototypically do not connect clauses—in fact indicate the relation between the preceding and the following parts of discourse, thereby fulfilling the role of connectives. [9] Particles have the same problem: we can divide particles according to a syntactic generalization, that is, adverbial versus connective particles. However, borders sometimes are fuzzy, and possibly arbitrary. For example, why do we usually label δέ “particle” and καί “conjunction,” when the connective functions of the former and the adverbial ones of the latter are amply exploited in our source texts? The idea that conjunctions and adverbs have fluid boundaries is hard to accept for classicists, because of a long-standing terminological tradition according to which syntactic distinctions suffice for determining the function of words. This chapter contends that the term “particle,” however problematic, allows an interpreter of texts to maintain a neutral stance towards the discourse functions of words that may be syntactically quite diverse. [10]
§5. The view that functions exist on a continuum and do not fall into clear-cut categories underlies our method of analysis and our presentation of the results. The reader will not find quantitative overviews of functions, because functions are multidimensional most of the time, and especially because functions are based on inferences. Rather, the reader will find discussion of types of constructions, use of representative examples based on examining large amounts of text, or quotation of certain instances that illustrate a point better than others.
§6. Contemporary linguistics has considered, discussed, criticized, and revised the term “discourse markers” to avoid syntactically rigid divisions, and conversely to enhance the non-propositional relevance of several lexical items mono- and cross-linguistically. [11] Dealing with δέ, τε, and καί in ancient Greek literature means that one has to constantly cope with the propositional as well as the non-propositional levels of meaning, along with various clause positions that are not always easy to explain. However, the ancient grammarians attest to the use of a general term that modern analyses of ancient Greek would do well to adopt, since this term encourages us to be less oriented to syntactic classifications. This term is σύνδεσμος, “combiner,” [12] which refers to instances when clause combining is mediated through the use of lexical items. In Greek and in many other languages clause combining is possible through asyndeton [13] as well as through dedicated syndetic devices. “Combiner” simply is the equivalent of “syndetic device.” It has the advantage of being more neutral than “conjunction,” which derives from the literal translation of σύνδεσμος in Latin (coniunctio). In our modern mindset “conjunction” is syntactically strongly connoted, whereas “combiner” allows for a smoother inclusion of adverbs and sentence adverbials.
§7. A major challenge in understanding and-coordination strategies not only in historiography but also in epic, lyric, and drama is represented by the fact that translations regularly misrepresent the high frequency of δέ, τε, and καί, by replacing parataxis with hypotaxis. For example, a clause coordinated by δέ easily becomes a relative clause. [14] This is a predictable operation if we take into account the rules of our writing style. [15] But the rules of writing and of using texts in the archaic and classical Greek period are less clear; therefore, we should avoid making this substitution whenever possible, so as to preserve the original words, even if the resulting translation features a seemingly simple (or repetitive) “and.” The problem is not merely formal, I suspect. Over the past centuries and even in the past decades, an aesthetically-based preference for hypotaxis over parataxis has led scholars to judge hypotaxis as an “improvement” over “primitive” parataxis. IV.3 will discuss how modern full stops in ancient Greek texts reveal hypotactic constructions of periodic discourse even when particles and independent clauses suggest otherwise. Here I will just mention a paradoxical fact: Thucydides, who is considered a master of hypotaxis, actually features an extraordinary amount of καί: 10,231 instances. [16]
§8. As for the seemingly plain role of and, many recent studies on and in English reveal a high degree of sophistication in its use, a fact that requires deep investigation. And is a profitable word to study precisely because it is multifunctional, and leaves most of its implied meanings to the receiver’s understanding. I am going to list here four aspects of and in English that are crucially relevant to this chapter, and especially to καί.
§9. First, like many other conjunctions, and can connect facts but also acts. Consider these utterances:
(t1)
Y. Yesterday we went to the movies and afterwards we went to the pub for a beer.
X. Why didn’t Peter show up? And, where were you that night?
Van Dijk 1979:450
While in Y “and afterwards” connects the content segments “we went to the movies” and “we went to the pub for a beer,” in X and connects the act of asking “why didn’t Peter show up?” and the act of asking further “where were you that night?” Such a distinction is important as it clarifies that the connection does not need to be exclusively between states of affairs.
§10. The second aspect relates to the act of connecting in itself. Given that speakers may combine clauses without using any syndetic item, the use of and must be relevant in some way. Lang and Sköries [17] claim that and (in English as well as in German, at least) combines items not only quantitatively but also qualitatively; it does not simply “add,” it “links.” The qualitative value of and consists in implying that the linked items are similar and diverse at the same time. Consider, for example, the title of the song “Der Tod und das Mädchen” (“Death and the Maiden”). “Death” and “maiden” share diversity and similarity through the link established by “und” (“and”). To use Pander Maat’s terms, and creates a “joint relevance” of the two conjuncts. [18] The title announces such joint relevance; the words of Matthias Claudius and the music of Franz Schubert substantiate it. And in titles of scientific articles works in the same way.
§11. The third aspect is the capacity of and to be, as linguists have pointed out, “asymmetrical.” The notion of asymmetry comes from logic. If p and q cannot equal q and p, then and is asymmetrical. [19] We might say, “Bring me my shoes and my jacket,” which equals “Bring me my jacket and my shoes,” but “the world will smile with you, and smile” does not equal “smile, and the world will smile with you.” The following utterances show asymmetrical and in that in each of them and implies something more than and—for example, “and afterwards,” “and so,” etc. This makes the position of the two conjuncts unchangeable, or, in other words, if the order changes, the meaning changes as well. Let us think, for instance, of the quite different cause-effect relations of “He left her, and she took to the bottle” versus “she took to the bottle, and he left her.”
(t2)
a. John took off his shoes and jumped in the pool
Sweetser 1990:8
b. It’s my life and I do what I want.
Sköries 1999:19
c. They should have told you, and they didn’t.
Sköries 1999:21
d. You give me your ice cream and I’ll give you mine
Sköries 1999:22
e. He left her and she took to the bottle
Carston 2002:224
f. There are paperbacks and there is Penguin.
A Penguin slogan, Haaretz, August 2, 1995; quoted in Ariel 2010:64 [20]
The overarching point is that it is up to the receiver to infer what and specifically implies, as (s)he makes sense of the link being established. Carston (2002:222-264) discusses the notion of “enrichment” to explain the ability of and to convey more than simple addition. [21]
§12. The fourth and final aspect concerns discourse transitions. Sköries (1999:238) focuses on the imbalance characterizing the two conjuncts linked by and in the formulaic closure of folktales, “And they lived happily ever after.” The second conjunct is the conclusion expressed by the and clause, while the first conjunct is the entire story preceding the conclusion. The author submits that and in fact compensates for this imbalance by stressing the narrative relevance of the closure: a series of discrete events that took place over a certain stretch of time is linked to one happy “ever after” state that seals the story.
§13. All these aspects of and-coordination (connecting facts and acts; establishing a qualitative link; asymmetry between the conjuncts; variable size of the two conjuncts) will be retrieved in the next sections, which explore the discourse functions of δέ, τε, and καί. The order of presentation is designed to progress from discussing a minimal to a “heavy” sense of addition. I shall make use of examples that are representative or particularly apt. I shall also include examples from other genres (prose and poetry). The non-historiographical examples will work either as initial input challenging canonical descriptions, or as evidence supporting the pragmatic readings of Herodotus and Thucydides that I am going to offer.

2.2 δέ marking the beginning of a new discourse act

§14. δέ is one of the most versatile particles. Unlike other particles, which can work on the propositional level in some usages (for example, ἀλλά replacing a chunk of content with a different content), δέ makes sense exclusively on a pragmatic level. Its versatility resides in its absolute lack of semantic stability, and its complete dependence on context and co-text. δέ is used to introduce contrast and to mark topic continuation, and has a range of intermediate functions.
§15. When δέ is in a clause that has no adversative meaning, it is seen as “continuative” δέ. However, this label reveals problems with the way the particle’s functions have been conceptualized. Denniston’s classification system – and his own abandonment of it – exemplifies some of the problems. First he marks a category of connective roles, which he subdivides into “adversative” and “continuative.” [22] However, soon after presenting them in a very few pages, he devotes attention to “particular uses of connective δέ” about which he immediately specifies in a parenthesis, “It will be convenient to drop the distinction between continuative and adversative, henceforward.” [23] Such uses include “δέ for γάρ,” δέ for οὖν or δή,” “δέ marking the transition from the introduction to a speech to the opening of the proper speech,” inceptive δέ, “apparently superfluous δέ,” δέ in exclamations, and δέ in questions (sometimes preceded by apostrophes or imperatives). [24] So, one infers, these uses are neither adversative nor continuative. Then Denniston marks out a category of non-connective δέ, which he subsequently divides into “apodotic δέ,” δέ occurring after various types of protases, δέ in participial phrases, “resumptive” δέ (that is, when it accompanies words that are picked up by repetition), and duplicated δέ (when it occurs in apodoses as well as in the preceding protases). [25]
§16. Denniston’s need to abandon the dichotomous distinction “adversative” versus “continuative” so soon after he establishes it, and the fact that he groups several types of δέ under the rubric “non-connective,” convey something significant. The uses of δέ encompass very different semantic contexts and very different syntactic constructions; therefore its functions must exceed matters of contrast and continuation, as well as matters of coordination and subordination. The conclusion I anticipate here builds on Bakker’s reading of δέ’s basic function, which is to mark discourse boundaries. [26] δέ in Herodotus and Thucydides marks boundaries between discourse acts, by indicating where a new act or move begins. [27]
§17. What makes a δέ utterance an act or move, and what makes it new or separate? Let me begin with a sample of occurrences in Herodotus and Thucydides. Over the first thousand words of the two Histories, δέ occurs 41 times in Herodotus and 29 times in Thucydides. [28] Even within such relatively small stretches of discourse, it is possible to detect interesting phenomena. Instead of using semantic or syntactic criteria to classify δέ (asking whether words surrounding δέ express contrast, in the case of the former, or in the latter case, asking whether δέ occurs in main or subclauses), my intent is to show the discourse relevance of using δέ because of its remarkable versatility, which encompasses both the semantic and syntactic domains. The only consistent meaning of δέ is pragmatic, and it consists in marking separate or new discourse acts. [29]
§18. In the selected Herodotean and Thucydidean excerpts δέ appears in different constructions. It occurs with (1) appositions (in Herodotus); (2) in main clauses that work as separate statements (both in Herodotus and in Thucydides); (3) with subordinating conjunctions (in both); (4) with participles and within infinitive constructions (mainly in Herodotus); and finally, (5) in short constructions projecting a multi-act discourse unit (mainly in Thucydides).
§19. In the first group, δέ in appositional phrases in Herodotus, we find the following instance:
(t3)
Κροῖσος ἦν Λυδὸς μὲν γένος, παῖς δὲ Ἀλυάττεω, τύραννος δὲ ἐθνέων τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ, …
Herodotus 1.6.1
Croesus was a Lydian by birth, son of Alyattes, and sovereign of all the nations west of the river Halys, … (tr. Godley)
Usually δέ has clausal scope, but in these examples it frames information that lacks any predicate. [30] Nevertheless, the information, as I see it, is presented as a separate information unit. δέ marks this information unit as a separate discourse act.
§20. A second group of instances regards clauses that represent separate statements:
(t4)
φασὶ … ἁρπάσαι τοῦ βασιλέος τὴν θυγατέρα Εὐρώπην· εἴησαν δ’ ἂν οὗτοι Κρῆτες. Ταῦτα μὲν δὴ …
Herodotus 1.2.1
[A]ccording to their story … they carried off the king’s daughter Europa. These Greeks must, I suppose, have been Cretans. So far then, … (tr. Godley)
(t5)
ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς βαρβάροις ἔστιν οἷς νῦν, καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς Ἀσιανοῖς, πυγμῆς καὶ πάλης ἆθλα τίθεται, καὶ διεζωμένοι τοῦτο δρῶσιν. πολλὰ δ’ ἂν καὶ ἄλλα τις ἀποδείξειε τὸ παλαιὸν Ἑλληνικὸν ὁμοιότροπα τῷ νῦν βαρβαρικῷ διαιτώμενον.
Thucydides 1.6.5-1.6.6
Some barbarians even now, especially in Asia, hold boxing and wrestling bouts in which loincloths are worn. There are many other resemblances one could point to between the old Greek and the present barbarian ways of life. (tr. Hammond)
“These Greeks must, I suppose, have been Cretans” (t4) and “There are many other resemblances one could point to…” (t5), from the cognitive point of view are unframed discourse: for a moment the historians step out of the account they are giving, to insert a narratorial comment. [31] δέ marks these statements as separate and different. As §30 will clarify, δέ is one of the linguistic devices that mark discourse discontinuity.
§21. The third group concerns δέ following subordinating conjunctions:
(t6)
Οὗτος δὴ ὦν ὁ Κανδαύλης ἠράσθη τῆς ἑωυτοῦ γυναικός, ἐρασθεὶς δὲ ἐνόμιζέ οἱ εἶναι γυναῖκα πολλὸν πασέων καλλίστην. Ὥστε δὲ ταῦτα νομίζων, ἦν γάρ οἱ τῶν αἰχμοφόρων Γύγης …, τούτῳ τῷ Γύγῃ καὶ τὰ σπουδαιέστερα τῶν πρηγμάτων ὑπερετίθετο ὁ Κανδαύλης …
Herodotus 1.8.1
This Candaules, then, fell in love with his own wife, so much so that he believed her to be by far the most beautiful woman in the world; and believing this, he praised her beauty beyond measure to Gyges …; for it was to Gyges that he entrusted all his most important secrets. (tr. Godley)
(t7)
κίνησις γὰρ αὕτη μεγίστη δὴ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐγένετο καὶ μέρει τινὶ τῶν βαρβάρων, ὡς δὲ εἰπεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων.
Thucydides 1.1.2
This was in fact the greatest disturbance to affect the Greek and a good part of the non-Greek world, one might even say the majority of mankind. (tr. Hammond)
In (t6) neither ὥστε nor ὡς introduces a proper subclause: in the former case we are dealing with “paratactic” ὥστε, [32] which serves to introduce the next piece of narration as a consequence or result of the preceding piece; in the latter, we are dealing with a parenthetical construction ὡς εἰπεῖν (equivalent to “so to say”). I submit that δέ, independently of the syntactic status of the host clause, qualifies it as discrete, as a unit that has its own separate force. In the Herodotus passage, δέ signals that a new discourse act and move are beginning. The new act includes “resumptive” ταῦτα and the repetition of the verb νομίζω (see the preceding ἐνόμιζε), linguistic clues that go to support the hypothesis that a distinct discourse act is being enacted (ὥστε δὲ ταῦτα νομίζων, “he was believing so, and as a consequence of that…”). In addition, the subsequent γάρ signals that a different discourse act is going to follow. In the new move, which is larger than the first act, the historian links the king with Gyges. [33] In (t7) the presence of δέ in ὡς εἰπεῖν suggests that the stretch ὡς δὲ εἰπεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων is a separate act. Within this act, ὡς εἰπεῖν works as a discourse marker that attenuates—metalinguistically—the universalizing expression ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων. [34]
§22. The fourth group is represented by δέ after participles and in infinitive constructions. δέ in infinitive constructions appears several times in the thousand-word Herodotean excerpt, for the obvious reason that reported accounts and indirect speeches constitute the main narrative technique underlying those chapters. Here is an instance:
(t8)
Πέμψαντα δὲ τὸν Κόλχων βασιλέα ἐς τὴν Ἑλλάδα κήρυκα αἰτέειν τε δίκας τῆς ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀπαιτέειν τὴν θυγατέρα· τοὺς δὲ ὑποκρίνασθαι ὡς …
Herodotus 1.2.3
When the Colchian king sent a herald to demand reparation for the robbery and restitution of his daughter, the Greeks replied that … (tr. Godley)
Once again, regardless of the syntactic surface, which indicates dependent clauses, the two δέ signpost new steps in narrative: first, πέμψαντα … αἰτέειν τε … καὶ ἀπαιτέειν, with the Colchian king as the agent; second, ὑποκρίνασθαι, with the Greeks as agents. [35]
§23. The thousand-word Thucydidean excerpt offers the following instance of δέ with participles within an infinitive construction:
(t9)
δοκεῖ δέ μοι, … κατὰ ἔθνη δὲ … τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν παρέχεσθαι, Ἕλληνος δὲ καὶ τῶν παίδων αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ Φθιώτιδι ἰσχυσάντων, καὶ ἐπαγομένων αὐτοὺς …
Thucydides 1.3.2
I believe … the various tribes took their own names, … . When Hellen and his sons grew to power in Phthiotis, and were called in … (tr. Hammond)
The information about Hellenus and his sons arriving in Phthiotis represents a narrative step on its own; the subject is different from the previous δέ discourse act (κατὰ ἔθνη δὲ …), but the verb forms of the entire passage (1.3.2) grant continuity to the discourse, as all participles and infinitives derive from δοκεῖ δέ μοι with which the subsection starts.
§24. Finally, Thucydides makes especial use of δέ in short constructions projecting a multi-act discourse unit. Projection takes place when short and syntactically incomplete phrases (whether noun or verbal phrases) are fronted to encompass multiple elements that are logically dependent on them. In the monograph we call them “priming acts.” [36] The thousand-word sample includes the following instances:
(t10)
a. Τῶν δὲ πόλεων | [37] ὅσαι μὲν …
Thucydides 1.7.1
b. δηλοῦσι δὲ | τῶν τε ἠπειρωτῶν τινὲς …
Thucydides 1.5.2
c. οἱ δ’ οὖν | ὡς ἕκαστοι Ἕλληνες …
Thucydides 1.3.4
δέ marks the subjects in these three excerpts (the Greek cities; what shows piracy to be a good thing; the peoples who came to be called Hellenes), while the subsequent constructions (peninitial μέν; peninitial τε; subordinating conjunction ὡς) isolate them and make them separate Kurzkola, “short kôla.” [38] The fronted phrases announce a macrotopic to be developed by additional clauses: they are what conjoin those clauses into a discourse unit or narrative move. [39] The fact that all three priming acts in (t10) coincide with the start of new sections in Stuart and Jones’ edition converges on the idea that they encode discourse transitions.
§25. The element that underlies all the constructions and discourse functions under discussion is the “discretizing” force of δέ (to use Bakker’s term [40] ). δέ is a boundary marker that marks separate steps in the discourse, each of them with its own force. δέ maintains its discretizing force regardless of the syntactic status of the act it is in, and regardless of the specific communicative “point” associated with each δέ act.

2.2.1 δέ in phrases

§26. Let us now expand on the range of constructions I have just outlined. δέ sometimes marks acts that do not coincide with full clauses. One such type of act is represented by appositional phrases such as the following: [41]
(t11)
Πρῶτα μὲν ἐς Σάρδις ἐλθόντες ἅμα Ἀρισταγόρῃ τῷ Μιλησίῳ, δούλῳ δὲ ἡμετέρῳ, ἀπικόμενοι ἐνέπρησαν τά τε ἄλσεα καὶ τὰ ἱρά…
Herodotus 7.8.β.3
First they [the Athenians] came to Sardis with our slave Aristagoras the Milesian and burnt the groves and the temples; … (tr. Godley)
Aristagoras, the orchestrator of the Ionian rebellion, had been enslaved by the Persians (his death is told at the very end of book 5). Herodotus organizes Xerxes’ speech in such a way that the apposition (δούλῳ … ἡμετέρῳ), thanks to δέ, becomes a parenthetical comment that stands out as a little separate act. The specific force of the comment resides in conveying scornful pride, which can be inferred by the whole co-text and context. [42] Godley’s translation, however, evens out the message by putting “our slave” simply in attributive apposition, and giving priority to the macro-syntactic structure.
§27. In light of this passage, Legrand’s editorial decision to put a comma after ἀνόλβιος in the following passage—where Hude (OCT), who keeps the more common form of the adjective ἄνολβος, does not punctuate—makes eminent sense:
(t12)
Ὁ μὲν δὴ μέγα πλούσιος, ἀνόλβιος δέ, δυοῖσι προέχει τοῦ εὐτυχέος μοῦνον …
Herodotus 1.32.6
The man who is very rich but unfortunate surpasses the lucky man in only two ways, … [43] (tr. Godley)
Solon is explaining to Croesus that wealth does not entail happiness. In ἀνόλβιος δέ the discourse function of δέ is not to mark a semantic contrast—ἀνόλβιος encodes that already; the function is to mark a separate act, which specifies that an unhappy state may well accompany a very rich state. A similar phenomenon occurs with δέ following a comparative:
(t13)
Φροντίζων δὲ εὑρίσκω ἅμα μὲν κῦδος ἡμῖν προσγινόμενον χώρην τε τῆς νῦν ἐκτήμεθα οὐκ ἐλάσσω οὐδὲ φλαυροτέρην παμφορωτέρην δέ, ἅμα δὲ τιμωρίην τε καὶ τίσιν γινομένην.
Herodotus 7.8.α.2
… and my considerations persuade me that we may win not only renown, but a land neither less nor worse, and more fertile, than that which we now possess; and we would also gain vengeance and requital. (tr. Godley)
Xerxes, the speaker, marks his own considerations by using the explicit performative construction εὑρίσκω + φροντίζων (literally “while thinking I find that …”), accompanied by δέ. Thus, δέ tells us that this is an act in itself, which in fact starts a move (see the multi-act unit ἅμα μέν, … later answered by ἅμα δέ). [44] The δέ following παμφορωτέρην suggests that we should take παμφορωτέρην δέ as a separate discourse act. In Xerxes’ words the semantic and pragmatic structure of what characterizes χώρην (the Greek land he wants to conquer) is clear: two negations and two pejorative comparative adjectives are followed by a comparative adjective that is positively oriented and accompanied by δέ. We process the three assessments through three distinct discourse acts and possibly three intonation units [45] : οὐκ ἐλάσσω | οὐδὲ φλαυροτέρην | παμφορωτέρην δέ: “we may win a land that is not less, that is not worse, but on the contrary is more fertile.” [46]
§28. Notice that (t11)-(t13) have all been taken from speeches. Perhaps discourse acts that are marked by δέ and are not full clauses, are found more in direct speech than in narrative sections. Whether or not this is the case, these instances resonate with the short clauses, the parenthetical clauses, and the other syntactic constructions that δέ can accompany. Such phrases containing δέ are all meant to convey separate discourse acts. [47] What the instances in direct speech suggest overall is a great deal of vividness. In the following passage the Syracusan leader Hermocrates gives a speech against the Athenians in Camarina (6.76-80). The words below conclude its first part (chapter 76):
(t14)
περὶ δὲ οἱ μὲν σφίσιν ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐκείνῳ καταδουλώσεως, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ δεσπότου μεταβολῇ οὐκ ἀξυνετωτέρου, κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ. Ἀλλ’ οὐ γὰρ δή …
Thucydides 6.76.4
Τhe Athenians were looking to replace Persian enslavement with theirs, and the Greeks to make a change of slave-master—to one just as clever, but clever for the worse. But enough of this … (tr. Hammond)
I interpret κακοξυνετωτέρου δέ not just as a contrastive appendix, but as a full discourse step (however elliptical). It forcefully and vividly states something on its own: the new masters that the Greeks are going to have are wiser, but for evil. [48]

2.2.2 δέ in syntactically independent clauses

§29. When δέ appears in clauses with finite verbs, the particle marks with equal clarity the clause’s status as a separate communicative act:
(t15)
ὁ δὲ … ξύλλογον ποιήσας (ἔτι δ’ ἐστρατήγει) ἐβούλετο θαρσῦναί …
Thucydides 2.59.3
He [Pericles] (…) called a meeting (he was still general) with the intention of stiffening … (tr. Hammond)
Here ἔτι δ’ ἐστρατήγει is not syntactically integrated with the rest of the sentence. The sign of parenthesis (which alternatively may be rendered by two dashes) is necessary in the English translation, but the Greek does not need it. [49] δέ suffices to mark discontinuity in discourse, and the syntactic impossibility of two contiguous finite verbs (ἐστρατήγει ἐβούλετο) enables readers to infer a boundary between them. This δέ in fact starts an unframed act: the narration of events (framed discourse) stops and gives way to a general (or omniscient) statement. A similar case in Herodotus occurs:
(t16)
… ἀπαγινέοντας δὲ φορτία Αἰγύπτιά τε καὶ Ἀσσύρια τῇ τε ἄλλῃ [χώρῃ] ἐσαπικνέεσθαι καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐς Ἄργος· τὸ δὲ Ἄργος τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον προεῖχε ἅπασι τῶν ἐν τῇ νῦν Ἑλλάδι καλεομένῃ χώρῃ. Ἀπικομένους δὲ τοὺς Φοίνικας ἐς δὴ τὸ Ἄργος τοῦτο διατίθεσθαι τὸν φόρτον.
Herodotus 1.1.1-2
Among other places to which they carried Egyptian and Assyrian merchandise, they came to Argos, which was at that time preeminent in every way among the people of what is now called Hellas. The Phoenicians came to Argos, and set out their cargo. (tr. Godley)
Note that Godley uses a relative clause, “which was at that time …,” to render the discontinuous piece of information. The Greek of Herodotus, however, conveys the break by using a syntactically independent δέ clause (τὸ δὲ Ἄργος τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον προεῖχε ἅπασι τῶν ἐν τῇ νῦν Ἑλλάδι καλεομένῃ χώρῃ). The grammatical subject coincides with the last word of the preceding clause, [50] but tense is discontinuous (imperfect προεῖχε, against the previous and the following aorists, ἐσαπικνέεσθαι and ἀπικομένους). [51] The subsequent δέ clause (ἀπικομένους δὲ…) assures us that we have resumed the narration of events; note the participle and the infinitive, which have the Phoenicians as their grammatical subject (see 1.1.1 τούτους γάρ).
§30. Before continuing the analysis, it is important to clarify the relationship between δέ acts and discourse discontinuity, which I briefly mentioned in §20. δέ is a particle that contributes to signal discourse discontinuity rather than continuity. [52] What does it mean? However similar in force and in grammar two contiguous δέ acts may be, [53] δέ keeps them distinct, because it marks their boundary. This is a minimal discontinuity, but it represents all what δέ does. [54] δέ acts may effect greater discontinuity in discourse, but in that case other linguistic features contribute to its greater extent, such as a change in tense, a change in mood, a change of grammatical subject, a marked form of pronoun, and further particles. [55] The more such features co-occur, the stronger the discontinuity is. [56] δέ in itself just keeps acts separate. As such, it never clarifies how acts differ, or which is the different force they convey. [57] It is the whole constituted by δέ and the co-occurring features that tells us the point of the act. Only then we can see the difference with respect to the previous act, whatever feature introduces it.
§31. Let us exemplify how δέ keeps acts separate by means of a Herodotean passage.
(t17)
Ὦ ξεῖνε Ἀθηναῖε, ἡ δ’ ἡμετέρη εὐδαιμονίη οὕτω τοι ἀπέρριπται ἐς τὸ μηδέν, ὥστε οὐδὲ ἰδιωτέων ἀνδρῶν ἀξίους ἡμέας ἐποίησας;
Herodotus 1.32.1
My Athenian friend, is our prosperity so worthless that you make us not even a match for private citizens? (tr. AB)
Solon has just argued, upon Croesus’ inquiry, that Tellus, first, and Cleobis and Biton, second, are the happiest men he has ever heard of. At that point Croesus asks in disappointment the question here reported. The question proper starts after a vocative expression (ὦ ξεῖνε Ἀθηναῖε). In a discourse act perspective, δέ starts an act that spells out an inference from Solon’s replies (that is, Solon despises Croesus’ happiness), and in fact it introduces the question, while ὦ ξεῖνε Ἀθηναῖε constitutes a different act. [58] In virtue of that, there is no need to think of this δέ as “postponed.” [59] The postponement relates to the beginning of the sentence, but in pragmatic terms the δέ is where it should be, that is, at the beginning of a new act.

2.2.3 “Inceptive” δέ

§32. δέ at the beginning of speeches, whether preceded by a vocative or not, is called “inceptive δέ” by Denniston (1950: 172) and by Cooper (2002:2935). Denniston, applying the concept only to speeches in Herodotus and Xenophon, explains inceptive δέ as follows: “Sometimes δέ marks a contrast with the preceding speech. (…) But in other places there is no obvious sense of contrast. (…) The object is, no doubt, to give a conversational turn to the opening (‘Well,’), and to avoid formality.” [60]
§33. Verdenius, in three articles and short notes (Verdenius 1947; 1955; 1974), gives a more comprehensive account of inceptive δέ. He broadens the category to include δέ after exclamations and apostrophes. He also takes account of δέ occurring at the incipit of works. Here is an example taken from the numerous beginnings he quotes: [61]
(t18)
Κατὰ τάδε ξύμμαχοι ἔσονται Λακεδαιμόνιοι <καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι> πεντήκοντα ἔτη. ἢν [δέ] τινες ἴωσιν ἐς τὴν γῆν πολέμιοι τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ κακῶς ποιῶσι Λακεδαιμονίους, …
Thucydides 5.23.1
These are the terms on which the Spartans and the Athenians shall be allies for fifty years. [indentation] If any people enter Spartan territory with hostile intent and do harm to the Spartans … (tr. Hammond)
Thucydides mentions the oaths and the terms of the alliance between Spartans and the Athenians after the peace of Nicias (καὶ ἐγένοντο ὅρκοι καὶ ξυμμαχία ἥδε, 5.22.3). Κατὰ τάδε starts a separate discourse, which is the record of the agreements. By means of τάδε the utterance projects that the details of these terms are about to come. ἢν [δέ] τινες starts the actual list of the agreements. This is why Verdenius regards this δέ as an example of “inceptive” δέ. The metalanguage of δέ in this case consists in marking the beginning of a series of entries; this is where the actual content of the oaths start. [62] The English translation of Hammond (2009:269) renders these discontinuities by presenting the entire oaths’ list in smaller font and as a spaced paragraph, and by indenting on “If any people…,” which corresponds to the Greek ἢν [δέ] τινες. Verdenius notes that Hude and Krüger delete the particle, while Stuart and Jones put it between square brackets. I infer ex silentio that all the manuscripts report δέ, and, given the discourse function I tried to explain, I see no reason to remove the particle. [63]
§34. Verdenius’ conclusion about inceptive δέ is that δέ originally was a weakened form of δή. [64] Beyond this thought, the interesting side of Verdenius’ inquiry (and of Denniston’s and Cooper’s notes) is the association between δέ and the idea of a new start, in content and in performance. From a pragmatic perspective, discourse acts signaled by δέ are not only separated from whatever precedes them, but, in some cases at least, appear to signal a new start. The newness may involve a topical spin (whether at the absolute incipit or at an internal beginning of works), or it may mark a new intonational contour. This way of marking discourse discontinuity has to be taken into account as part of the communicative potential of δέ acts in historiography as well as in other genres.
§35. δέ is a syndetic device, but some scholars compare the occurrence of δέ with asyndeton. [65] What makes δέ comparable to asyndeton? The answer rests on what has been analyzed so far: δέ separates, it marks a boundary, and it may occur at beginnings. The particle’s affinity with asyndeton probably also explains scholars’ reluctance to classify δέ as a conjunction.

2.2.4 “Apodotic” δέ

§36. Earlier (§21) I noted that when δέ appears after subordinating conjunctions, the particle qualifies the host clause as a discrete unit with its own separate force, regardless of the host clause’s syntactic status.
§37. My point about the irrelevance of the host clause’s syntactic status may be further illustrated by considering the functionality of δέ when it appears in main clauses following causal or temporal subclauses. Denniston calls this “apodotic δέ” and lists it under the rubric “non-connective” δέ (along with duplicated δέ, which occurs in apodoses as well as in the preceding protases). The fact that δέ is used both in subclauses and “apodotic” main clauses (with no exception for Herodotus and Thucydides) means that δέ works on a level that is independent of syntactic hierarchies. That level is that of the individual strategic steps forming any complex thought. Here is an instance of apodotic δέ in Thucydides:
(t19)
… καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπ’ ἐκείνου μεγίστη, ἐπειδή τε ὁ πόλεμος κατέστη, ὁ δὲ φαίνεται καὶ ἐν τούτῳ προγνοὺς τὴν δύναμιν. ἐπεβίω δὲ δύο ἔτη καὶ ἓξ μῆνας· καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀπέθανεν, ἐπὶ πλέον ἔτι ἐγνώσθη ἡ πρόνοια αὐτοῦ ἡ ἐς τὸν πόλεμον.
Thucydides 2.65.5
… and under his [Pericles’] guidance the city [Athens] reached its greatest height: and when the war came, it is clear that he provided for the strength of Athens in war too. He survived the outbreak of war by two years and six months. After his death the foresight he had shown in regard to the war could be recognized yet more clearly. (tr. Hammond)
In spite of the comma before ἐπειδή, which signposts a light pause, we may imagine a major pause before ἐπειδή τε, as τε, especially in Thucydides, is frequently used to introduce clauses that are independent from the preceding ones. [66] ὁ δέ appears as “apodotic δέ” after a temporal subclause. The reason why δέ is there is not so much to mark the change of grammatical subject, [67] as to qualify the clause as a new strategic step in the discourse (“he provided strength in war too”). This is what the next clause, which is still about Pericles and is still introduced by δέ (ἐπεβίω δὲ δύο ἔτη καὶ ἓξ μῆνας, “he survived the outbreak of war by two years and six months”), achieves as well.

2.2.5 δέ in priming acts

§38. In (t10) I gathered examples from the thousand-word sample of Thucydides, where δέ phrases project a multi-act unit (τῶν δὲ πόλεων | ὅσαι μὲν … (1.7.1), δηλοῦσι δὲ | τῶν τε ἠπειρωτῶν τινὲς … (1.5.2), and οἱ δ’ οὖν | ὡς ἕκαστοι Ἕλληνες … (1.3.4)). These phrases are pragmatically (and presumably also intonationally) isolated by the fact that the following particle or subordinating conjunction marks an act boundary (μέν, τε, and ὡς respectively). They invite us to cognitively keep the referents in focus for a while, even though the phrases appear syntactically incomplete and isolated (“anacoluthic”).
§39. In IV.3 I analyze further parallels from the two Histories, and I claim that by projecting multi-act units short δέ constructions start a move. In this chapter I signpost a grammatical variation involving such constructions, which supports one of the points already made about δέ, that is, syntactic diversity does not influence the pragmatic function of δέ. Consider the following adverbial phrase accompanied by δέ:
(t20)
τέλος δὲ | νεκρῶν τε πολλῶν ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοις ἤδη κειμένων ἐν τῷ ποταμῷ καὶ διεφθαρμένου τοῦ στρατεύματος τοῦ μὲν κατὰ τὸν ποταμόν, τοῦ δὲ καί, εἴ τι διαφύγοι, ὑπὸ τῶν ἱππέων, Νικίας Γυλίππῳ ἑαυτὸν παραδίδωσι …
Thucydides 7.85.1
In the end, when the bodies were lying heaped on one another in the river, and the army had been utterly destroyed, most of them there along the river and any who had escaped being accounted for by the cavalry, Nicias surrendered himself to Gylippus. (tr. Hammond)
This is one of the final poignant moments of the Sicilian expedition. τέλος δέ condenses the idea that a process has reached its completion; as such it semantically encompasses the content of the discrete steps that follow. On a pragmatic level it establishes projection by means of a short δέ phrase, grammatically isolated by the subsequent genitive absolutes νεκρῶν … κειμένων and διεφθαρμένου τοῦ στρατεύματος, which are chiastically arranged and conjoined by τε … καί.
§40. Even without subsequent act boundaries, clusters of words including δέ and occurring in first sentence position project arguments or sections that require more than one clause. Thucydidean examples include clusters that add evidence, proof, or authoritative evaluation about a certain fact, such as δηλοῖ δέ μοι (1.3.1) δηλοῖ δὲ μάλιστα (3.104.4); δηλοῖ δέ; δοκεῖ δέ μοι (1.3.2; 2.42.2; 6.34.2); σημεῖον δ’ ἐστί (1.6.2); τεκμήριον δέ (1.73.5; 2.15.4; 2.39.2; 2.50.2; 3.66.1); and τεκμηριοῖ δέ (1.3.3).
§41. Τhese constructions overall range from adverbial and verbal to noun phrases. Furthermore, in linguistics a univocal syntactic interpretation of noun phrases is not straightforward. [68] Still, in spite of this syntactic diversity, the pragmatic role of these constructions is consistent: they are all discourse acts that have a projecting force.

2.2.6 When the force of two contiguous δέ acts changes

§42. This final subsection focuses on the different force that contiguous δέ acts may convey. We have to retrieve, first, the idea that δέ per se does not tell anything about the specific force of the host act; it just marks its beginning (§§17; 21; 31). What characterizes the force or vis [69] of the act is the co-occurrence of other semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic features.
§43. In light of that, the force of contiguous δέ acts sharing the same grammatical subject or the same topic (which are tokens of discourse continuity) may be assumed to be similar, if not the same. Towards the beginning of the section on δέ, I made an observation about δέ with infinitives (see §§22-23), where the grammatical subject usually carries over from the previous clause(s). The non-finite verb forms invite the reader or listener to keep in mind the action framework within which single narrative or argumentative steps are presented. δέ discretizes such steps, but the steps continue in the same direction. The more tokens of discourse continuity appear across δέ acts, the less the individual force changes. This also holds for δέ with finite verbs, and is what leads us to read contiguous δέ acts as marking “narrative steps” without further specification.
§44. However, contiguous δέ acts can also differ in force, if the co-text and context suggests it. Before quoting an Herodotean example of that (Thucydides hardly makes use of contiguous δέ acts [70] ), let me point out an instance from Sappho:
(t21)
… ὄσσα δέ μοι τέλεσσαι
θῦμος ἰμέρρει, τέλεσον, σὺ δ’ αὔτα
σύμμαχος ἔσσο.
Sappho fr. 1.26-28
… And what my heart desires to accomplish please accomplish it, and you yourself be my ally. (tr. AB)
The closure of Sappho 1 presents two contiguous δέ acts that have a different force in spite of a remarkably similar grammar. The first is an entreaty that Aphrodite make the wishes of the singing “I” come true (realized by the imperative form τέλεσον and by the attached relative clause (ὄσσα … ἰμέρρει)). The second, σὺ δ’αὔτα / σύμμαχος ἔσσο, includes a further imperative with no change of the ‘you’-referent. However, a mix of elements makes this second δέ act different from the first in force. These elements are the remarkable prominence of the personal pronoun in the vocative form, which cannot serve to disambiguate the referent; [71] the further emphasis given by αὔτα, which makes Aphrodite the absolute center of attention; [72] finally, the lexical choice σύμμαχος, which resonates with the lyric tópos of love-as-a-battle. [73] All of this signals the pragmatic force not just of a humble request for an action, but of an intense desire about the being of the goddess herself.
§45. Even though in historiography the genre and its communicative goals are quite different from lyric, each δέ act in the following Herodotean excerpt has a different force from the other. Denniston lists this passage under instances of “duplicated δέ”:
(t22)
ὅθεν δὲ αὐτὰ ἔλαβε ἢ αὐτὸς ἐκτήσατο, τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν· τούτοισι δ’ ὦν πίσυνος ἐὼν κατήγαγε, …
Herodotus 7.153.3
From where he [Telines] got these [men], and whether or not they were his own invention, I cannot say; however that may be, it was in reliance upon them that he restored the exiles, … (tr. Godley)
Herodotus is telling how Telines, relative of Gelo (ruler of Gela and Syracuse) was able to reconcile his people after civil strife. He did so without the force of men, but by using the “holy instruments of these goddesses” (ἔχων οὐδεμίαν ἀνδρῶν δύναμιν ἀλλὰ ἱρὰ τούτων τῶν θεῶν, where τούτων refers to the previous mention τῶν χθονίων θεῶν, 7.153.2). The passage quoted above includes δέ in an indirect interrogative subclause (ὅθεν δέ …, where the predicate is disjoined in αὐτὰ ἔλαβε and αὐτὸς ἐκτήσατο); δέ in the following main clause (τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν); and a further δέ in the next main clause (τούτοισι δ’ … κατήγαγε). Regardless of the syntactic relation between sub- and main clause, three separate discourse acts with three different forces are performed: “how did this happen?,” “I can’t say that,” and “he restored them.” [74]

2.2.7 Interim conclusion

§46. δέ in both Histories shows semantic and especially syntactic versatility. I have given instances of δέ encompassing various syntactic configurations ((t3)-(t17)). The only consistent meaning of δέ derivable from its host constructions is pragmatic. This meaning consists in indicating that a new communicative act (or even move) is being performed. The new act may have a different subject (to speak in terms of content), or a different force (to speak in terms of intention), or both. Often δέ is attached to elements that in fact introduce new communication. Included in this use of δέ are points in the discourse when new content matches new performance (see “inceptive δέ” in 2.2.3), and when a short unit re-orients the audience’s attention by establishing a relationship with an upcoming longer stretch of discourse ((t10) and (t20)). In both cases the use of δέ indicates a hierarchy different from the syntactic one: it is a discourse hierarchy, connected to the cognitive relevance of the re-orientation of attention.

2.3 The continuum of τε

§47. τε is commonly understood as a particle that has a coordinating function in various grammatical contexts: when it connects two phrases by occurring twice (bisyndetic τε); when it appears before καί without intervening words (τε καί); when it appears before καί with intervening words (τε ... καί); finally, when it connects two (or more) phrases or clauses by occurring once, and without καί (τε “solitarium”). Conversely, τε is considered to have a non-coordinating (or non-connective) function when it occurs after relative pronouns, after a subordinating conjunction, or, as Ruijgh puts it (1971:1), whenever it cannot be substituted by καί. The standard label for the non-coordinating function is “epic τε.”
§48. This section questions the validity of the dichotomous distinction between coordinating and non-coordinating functions of τε from a pragmatic perspective. [75] Our entire corpus, not just Herodotus and Thucydides, makes us view τε as existing on a continuum, a view that allows “connective” and “adverbial” functions to coexist in various degrees. [76] We combine syntax, semantics, and pragmatics to support our interpretations. We also take into account genre expectations and the discourse strategies suggested by the co-text of τε. [77]
§49. Τhe label “epic” for non-connective τε appears first in Wentzel 1847 (1), a work that will be quoted later. Denniston (1950:496) provides a very concise description of “epic” τε: “epic τε of habitual action (…), which bears the same force when it follows relatives as when it follows other particles.” Denniston derives “universalizing” τε (as in ὅς τε meaning quicumque) from habitual τε. Ruijgh’s definition of “epic” τε (which gives the title to his 1971 monograph) is slightly different: τε is “epic” when it is found after a relative or after a subordinating conjunction at the beginning of a clause that most of the time represents a digression and/or introduces a permanent reality (“fait permanent,” 1971:2). [78]
§50. The following example, which comes from a genre that is neither epic nor historiography, challenges not only the distinction between connective and non-connective or “epic” τε, but also the traditional definition of “epic” instances.
(t23)
Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν ὑπῆρχε τοῖς ἡμετέροις προγόνοις μιᾷ γνώμῃ χρωμένοις περὶ τοῦ δικαίου διαμάχεσθαι. ἥ τε γὰρ ἀρχὴ τοῦ βίου δικαία· οὐ γάρ, ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοί, …
Lysias 2.17
Now in many ways it was natural to our ancestors, moved by a single resolve, to fight the battles of justice: for the very beginning of their life was just. They had not been collected, like most nations, … (tr. Lamb)
Lysias’ point in this passage is to show that the Athenians occupied their own land by virtue of autochthony rather than by invasion. However, it is not clear which function τε fulfills. [79] If γάρ is the connector, τε cannot have a connective function. Is Lysias alluding to “epic” τε by means of a reference to something “habitual” (Denniston 1950:496) or “digressif-permanent” (Ruijgh 1971:1), even though τε does not follow any relative pronoun or subordinating conjunction?
§51. When a use of τε does not fit the standard definition of non-connective τε, or when it seems reductive to posit a connective function, I propose to apply a pragmatic reading in which the key point to keep in mind is that a shift is occurring. The shift is from a content-oriented view to an attitude-oriented view. Instead of associating τε with habitual, universal, or permanent content, several functions of τε may be seen in connection with the speaker’s perspective on the content. The following examples will illustrate how this shift works. For now I anticipate that the speaker’s perspective on the content is that of “presenting knowledge as shared.”
§52. This reading rests on accounts offered by nineteenth century scholars. Particularly illuminating are the notes of Wentzel, in an essay on τε in Homer published in 1847. [80] According to his account, the originally demonstrative meaning of τε, “da” (“here/there,” compare οἶος – τοῖος), gives rise to both the so-called “copulative” as well as the “purely epic” uses of τε. [81] In the epic use τε indicates something general or known to the readers or addressees (“bekannt”), [82] or something proven true through perception. It may also indicate well-known phenomena (“allbekannte Erscheinungen”) regarding nature, human beings, gods, animals, or qualities and properties of objects and individuals; and it can be used in describing lands and items (“Länder und Sache”). [83] The copulative function (which Wentzel prefers to characterize as partitive or distributive) derives from the demonstrative one, where a series of items is presented almost asyndetically: “there is this, there is that.” [84] Setting aside the historical part of Wentzel’s arguments about τε, [85] his views on the relatedness of τε’s demonstrative and copulative functions is compatible with the model of a continuum: some demonstrative force underlies both the indication of something known and the presentation of different items in lists.
§53. Rather than setting a hard and fast rule where we divide all possible functions of τε in Archaic and Classical Greek between coordinating and non-coordinating roles, we should observe more closely what authors associate with τε, and how communication is improved by the use of τε. The following examples have either been left undiscussed, or labelled as “peculiar” or “superfluous,” in secondary literature. However, we can better understand them by assuming that τε exists on a continuum ranging from the copulative to the adverbial pole.

2.3.1 τε and shared knowledge

§54. When we consider what is implied by inserting τε in an utterance, the heaviest enrichment that readers and listeners can supply regards the adverbial “epic” functions. By enrichment we mean the interpretation that individual words suggest but leave unsaid. [86] We can say that Ruijgh’s adjectives “digressif” and “permanent” signpost enrichments attached to “epic” τε, namely the intention to digress in narrative (“digressif”) and the marking of content as permanent (“permanent”). We invite the reader to view the matter in a different light: the enrichment of τε concerns the perspective or attitude of the speaker (and possibly of the receiver as well) towards the content. What makes states of affairs permanent, habitual, or general is the shared knowledge about them. Wentzel’s suggestion that “epic” τε connotes something “known” (“bekannt,” 1847:2), Gonda’s translation “you know” for some Homeric τε (1954:207), and, finally, Bloch’s translation of τε “bekanntlich” (1955:147) hint at this. The idea of shared knowledge in fact can explain Homeric instances of non-copulative τε attached to non-permanent states of affairs, and instances of τε in clauses whose digressive character is questionable. [87] Here is an example:
(t24)
αἲ γὰρ ἐμοὶ τοσσήνδε θεοὶ δύναμιν περιθεῖεν,
τείσασθαι μνηστῆρας ὑπερβασίης ἀλεγεινῆς,
οἵ τέ μοι ὑβρίζοντες ἀτάσθαλα μηχανόωνται.
Homer Odyssey 3.205-207
O that the gods would clothe me with such strength, that I might take vengeance on the wooers for their grievous sin, who in wantonness devise mischief against me. (tr. Murray)
Telemachus is speaking to Nestor. The propositional content of the relative clause is not a permanent fact, and it is unlikely to preface Telemachus’ intention to digress. What τε could signal in this clause, conversely, is the articulation of shared knowledge about the suitors’ mischief. [88]
§55. Further adverbial functions of τε in Homer, besides the construction “relative pronoun + τε,” are connected either with the encyclopedic world of myths, or with sayings and proverbs, all of which represent shared knowledge. The following two examples feature the combinations καί τε and δέ τε. [89]
§56. The first passage regards sayings and proverbs:
(t25)
… οὔ μιν ἔγωγε
φεύξομαι ἐκ πολέμοιο δυσηχέος, ἀλλὰ μάλ’ ἄντην
στήσομαι, ἤ κε φέρῃσι μέγα κράτος, ἦ κε φεροίμην.
ξυνὸς Ἐνυάλιος, καί τε κτανέοντα κατέκτα.
Ὣς Ἕκτωρ ἀγόρευ’, …
Homer Iliad 18.306-310
[Hector speaking] “I verily will not flee from him out of dolorous war, but face to face will I stand against him, whether he shall win great victory, or haply I. Alike to all is the god of war, and lo, he slayeth him that would slay.” So Hector addressed their gathering, … (tr. Murray)
In the final part of his speech to his fellow Poulydamas, Hector considers a direct attack on Achilles, and the possibility that either he or Achilles wins. He backs up his thought by affirming the impartiality of Ares, who can compensate a slaying by cutting down the one who slew. The enrichment of καί in this case consists in “in fact”; the pragmatic function of the particle is to introduce an illustration of the gnomic statement ξυνὸς Ἐνυάλιος (see below the section on καί). τε stresses the shared-knowledge aspect of such sayings. [90]
§57. The second passage regards the encycopledic/cultural knowledge of myths:
(t26)
τῆς ἦ τοι πόδες εἰσὶ δυώδεκα πάντες ἄωροι,
ἓξ δέ τέ οἱ δειραὶ περιμήκεες, ἐν δὲ ἑκάστῃ
σμερδαλέη κεφαλή, ἐν δὲ τρίστοιχοι ὀδόντες,
πυκνοὶ καὶ θαμέες, πλεῖοι μέλανος θανάτοιο.
Homer Odyssey 12.89-92
[Circe speaking] Verily she [Scylla] has twelve feet, all misshapen, and six necks, exceeding long, and on each one an awful head, and therein three rows of teeth, thick and close, and full of black death. (tr. Murray)
The description of the monster’s necks, head, and teeth fits traditional knowledge, with τε signposting its recall, and multiple δέ marking each detail. In the Iliad the combination δέ τε almost always occurs in similes. [91] Similes quintessentially contain encyclopedic or cultural knowledge that are shared through traditional poetry. The role of particles in similes is extensively discussed in II.4.3. The epic instances singled out in the current paragraphs complement the analyses included in II.4, but most of all they are instrumental to the upcoming argument about τε in Herodotus and Thucydides.
§58. The discourse functions of τε in the two Histories overall can be assessed as follows: (1) they presuppose familiarity with the epic genre and τε as one of its features. [92] (2) A significant portion of instances reveals a connection with encyclopedic knowledge essential to historical and geographical accounts. Especially in Herodotus this knowledge comprises myths as well. (3) The shared-knowledge attitude is conveyed almost exclusively by τε in its connective role. In other words, the pragmatic meaning related to shared knowledge is largely an enrichment of copulative τε. These aspects define the historiographical uses of τε in Herodotus and Thucydides. The next paragraphs detail them.
§59. The analysis starts with instances οf τε that challenge standard grammatical interpretations. Consider this passage from Herodotus:
(t27)
… καὶ ὡς ἐγὼ συμβάλλομαι … τῷ Ἴστρῳ ἐκ τῶν ἴσων μέτρων ὁρμᾶται. Ἴστρος τε γὰρ ποταμὸς ἀρξάμενος ἐκ Κελτῶν … ῥέει …
Herodotus 2.33.2-3
… and as I guess, … it [the Nile] rises proportionally as far away as does the Ister. For the Ister flows from the land of the Celts … (tr. Godley)
Lloyd (1989:258) notes that τε does not correspond with a καί here, but is answered by δέ later on, in the clause περὶ δὲ τῶν τοῦ Νείλου πηγέων (chapter 34). However, between Ἴστρος τε γὰρ (…) and περὶ δὲ τῶν (…) no fewer than 64 words occur, including three δέ, two γάρ, one μὲν δή, and one καί. Interpreting τε as a marker of shared knowledge about the river is a more economical solution, especially because it is placed adjacent to the river’s name (I shall say more about τε and names). [93] In this passage γάρ may serve as a further signal of the fact that some encyclopedic knowledge is incorporated at this point, to make the argument more compelling. [94]
§60. The next passage is from Thucydides:
(t28)
Κερκυραῖοι δὲ ἐπειδὴ ᾔσθοντο τούς τε οἰκήτορας καὶ φρουροὺς ἥκοντας ἐς τὴν Ἐπίδαμνον τήν τε ἀποικίαν Κορινθίοις δεδομένην, ἐχαλέπαινον·
Thucydides 1.26.3
When the Corcyraeans learnt of the arrival of settlers and troops at Epidamnus, and the handover of the colony to Corinth, their reaction was angry. (tr. Hammond)
The Corcyraeans are annoyed by the arrival of Corinthian settlers and troops in Epidamnus. They are also annoyed by the handover of Epidamnus to Corinth. The first τε signals a τε … καί phrasal coordination between τούς οἰκήτορας and φρουρούς. From Hammond’s translation it can be inferred that he interprets the second τε as a means to coordinate the two participles (ἥκοντας and δεδομένην) governed by ᾔσθοντο (“they realized”). A different grammatical reading is possible: τήν τε ἀποικίαν Κορινθίοις δεδομένην is an apposition of Ἐπίδαμνον, [95] and the discourse function of τε is to expand on Epidamnus by introducing a piece of shared knowledge about the handover. [96] Accordingly, I translate: “The Corcyreans, when they realized that settlers as well as troops had arrived in Epidamnus—the colony passed to the Corinthians—had an angry reaction.” This reading explains more satisfactorily the position of ἐς τὴν Ἐπίδαμνον, which would work better before ἥκοντας (τούς τε … ἥκοντας, τήν τε … δεδομένην) if τε had a coordinating function. Most of all, this reading better explains the reaction of the Corcyraeans. The text suggests that the Corcyraeans, rather than simply learning about the handover, as in Hammond’s translation, already knew about it, and their anger is aroused by their discovery that material support had arrived from Corinth. τήν τε ἀποικίαν Κορινθίοις δεδομένην inserts a piece of information that seems to be shared not only among the Corcyraeans, but also by writer and readers.
§61. Even when τε is performing a copulative function (either in a τε … καί construction or by connecting two clauses by itself), it can simultaneously imply the idea of shared knowledge. That is, an enriched (adverbial) understanding of τε is compatible with its syndetic role. [97] I can see this dual function occurring, for example, in this passage from Thucydides:
(t29)
ἔτη δ’ ἐστὶ μάλιστα τριακόσια ἐς τὴν τελευτὴν τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου ὅτε Ἀμεινοκλῆς Σαμίοις ἦλθεν. ναυμαχία τε παλαιτάτη ὧν ἴσμεν γίγνεται Κορινθίων πρὸς Κερκυραίους· ἔτη δὲ μάλιστα καὶ ταύτῃ ἑξήκοντα καὶ διακόσιά ἐστι μέχρι τοῦ αὐτοῦ χρόνου.
Thucydides 1.13.3-4
It is three hundred years up to the end of this war, since Ameinocles visited the Samians. The oldest sea-battle of which we know is that between the Corinthians and the Corcyraeans. As for the latter, it is two hundred and sixty years up to the same time. (tr. AB)
τε works as an and connecting the preceding clauses (ἔτη δ’ ἐστὶ … ἦλθεν) to the following (ναυμαχία τε … Κερκυραίους). At the same time τε signals that the information given is generally known. [98] Along the continuum between copulative and without any enrichment, and τε marking shared knowledge after relative pronouns, this τε is situated in the middle.
§62. The association of Homeric copulative τε with “natural” rather than “accidental” coordination by Viti (2006 and 2008) indirectly adds to the point of τε’s continuum. “Natural” and “accidental” coordination are terms that Viti borrows from Wälchli (Wälchli 2005:5). [99] While “natural” coordination applies to conjuncts that are expected to co-occur, “accidental” coordination combines items that are accidentally related on a contextual base. Consider, for example, “land and sea” versus “the soil and the cherry tree.” Viti argues that the copulative functions of τε in Homer largely deal with “natural” rather than “accidental” coordination. By comparing τε and καί in book 1 of the Iliad and book 1 of the Odyssey, she demonstrates that in Homer τε relates more to phrases, and καί more to clauses; τε relates more to nouns, and καί more to verbs, τε relates more to symmetrical, and καί more to asymmetrical expressions; finally, τε relates to static or contemporary situations, and καί more to progression. The same holds for ca in Vedic, and –que in Latin. [100] A good example of τε marking natural coordination is ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε. [101] In that case τε appears in a bisyndetic construction involving noun phrases. Overall, the idea of natural coordination associated with several instances of τε in Homeric epic implies the following: a coordinating function can be combined with a joint semantic function of the two conjuncts. This thought fits the idea of a continuum: a connecting and is enriched by the implication “these two items are expected to occur together.”
§63. In II.4 (about Homer and Pindar) and here (about Herodotus and Thucydides), a further step is proposed: what is “natural” to associate in a coordinating construction is a piece of encyclopedic or experiential or cultural knowledge that is shared by a collectivity. Let us consider the following Herodotean passage including bisyndetic τε:
(t30)
Ὁ μὲν δὴ Κλεομένης, ὡς λέγεται, ἦν τε οὐ φρενήρης ἀκρομανής τε, ὁ δὲ Δωριεὺς ἦν …
Herodotus 5.42.1
Now Cleomenes, as the story goes, was not in his right mind and really quite mad, while Dorieus was …
This is how Herodotus in book 5 sums up the personality of Cleomenes, unscrupulous but also brilliant king of Sparta, before moving on to Cleomenes’ half-brother Dorieus. The passage features a peculiar example of bisyndetic τε in Herodotus. The peculiarity springs from the connection between two adjectival phrases (bisyndetic τε in Herodotus usually involves verbal phrases or clauses), and from the chiasmus τε – adjective – adjective - τε. The two τε can be interpreted as connective and “epic” at the same time: they associate quasi-synonyms, and they qualify the characterization of Cleomenes’ personality as something known, a piece of knowledge presumably shared by the community—the phrase might even evoke a saying about him. ὡς λέγεται, which alludes to the circulation of information, reinforces this shared-knowledge function of τε. [102]
§64. The clearest cases of τε where the coordinating and the shared-knowledge adverbial roles fully coexist are lists of names, either of people or places. Let us first cite an example of that from the oldest surviving drama by Aeschylus:
(t31)
Μαγνητικὴν δὲ γαῖαν ἔς τε Μακεδόνων
χώραν ἀφικόμεσθ’, ἐπ’ Ἀξιοῦ πόρον,
Βόλβης θ’ ἕλειον δόνακα Πάγγαιόν τ’ ὄρος,
Ἠδωνίδ’ αἶαν· …
Aeschylus Persians 492-495
[Messenger] Then we reached the land of Magnesia and entered the country of the Macedonians, coming to the river Axius, the reed-swamps of Lake Bolbe, and Mount Pangaeum, in the land of Edonia… (tr. Sommerstein)
The messenger is recalling different landmarks on the route from Athens to Susa. These places and their names were important to Aeschylus’ audience. [103] Through τε the language combines coordination with a shared-knowledge attitude, and perhaps also with a reminiscence of the epic genre. [104]
§65. Let us now switch to historiography. Some of the uses of τε in Herodotus and Thucydides involve encyclopedic knowledge, as befits a genre that has to incorporate a large number of personal and place names. [105] The very use of τε can imbue the conjuncts with an air of being widely known. Consider this example from Herodotus, one of many in the Histories that recall Aeschylus’ method of listing places:
(t32)
Οὗτος δὲ Κυαξάρῃ τε τῷ Δηιόκεω ἀπογόνῳ ἐπολέμησε καὶ Μήδοισι, Κιμμερίους τε ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίης ἐξήλασε, Σμύρνην τε τὴν ἀπὸ Κολοφῶνος κτισθεῖσαν εἷλε, ἐς Κλαζομενάς τε ἐσέβαλε.
Herodotus 1.16.2
… [Alyattes] who waged war against Deioces' descendant Cyaxares and the Medes, drove the Cimmerians out of Asia, took Smyrna (which was a colony from Colophon), and invaded the lands of Clazomenae. [106]
During the account of the Lydian kingdom from Gyges to Croesus (1.6-29) the historian introduces Alyattes (Croesus’ father), who succeeded king Sadyattes (1.16.1). The first τε in the excerpt signposts the coordination between king Cyaxares and his people, the Medes (Κυαξάρῃ τε … καὶ Μήδοισι). Τhe remaining τε coordinate clauses that summarizes further major endeavors of Alyattes. Notably, together with their syntactic function of coordinating conjunctions, all these τε occur near names (the Cimmerians, Smyrna, and Clazomenae, respectively). The degree of sharedness of this historical and geographical information cannot be established with precision; however, it is unlikely that Herodotus invents the information or presents it as something unheard of. [107]
§66. Thucydides, who uses τε more frequently than Herodotus, [108] associates the particle with names of people and places as well, both in τε … καί constructions and in constructions termed “sentential” τε (about which more later). [109] In order to check how frequently τε is used with names, I chose the combination τε καί as a sample. Unlike τε … καί, τε καί largely connects noun phrases, and it occurs 866 times in Herodotus, against 343 times in Thucydides. The difference is significant; the higher count in Herodotus may suggest that he prefers to add τε to καί in connection with nouns or noun phrases. [110] A more important result, however, concerns the frequency with names: in 285 cases one or both conjuncts are names in Herodotus (32.9%), against fifty (14.5%) in Thucydides.
§67. A parallel count, to see whether the presence of τε makes a difference in that frequency, regards how many times καί alone in book 1 of the two works relates to names. Out of 1,175 instances in Herodotus 1, this use of καί happens 77 times (6.5%), while out of 1,453 καί in Thucydides 1 it happens 136 times (9.35%). Therefore, Herodotus uses τε with names more often than Thucydides, and Thucydides uses καί alone with names more often than Herodotus.
§68. A further analysis concerns whether τε καί appears in what Viti would call “natural coordination” (what I have presented as “encyclopedic/cultural shared knowledge”) more in Herodotus than in Thucydides. Indeed, cases where, according to our interpretation, two items are coupled on the basis of a semantic association that depends more on general rather than on context-specific knowledge, are proportionally higher in Herodotus [111] than in Thucydides. [112] A final investigation regards how many instances of bisyndetic τε are found in the two works. In Herodotus the construction involves noun phrases as well as verbal phrases; interestingly enough, in ἤν τε … ἤν τε … the conjuncts tend to be short and symmetrical (syntactically and semantically). [113] Thucydides, conversely, who in general likes asymmetry, employs this construction less frequently; [114] he privileges the use of τε alone with scope over an entire sentence (see below). The construction οὔτε … οὔτε, in which the related constituents show a great deal of symmetry (but hardly any “natural” coordination), abounds in both authors.
§69. From this discussion a diachronic, and perhaps stylistic, difference across the two authors can be inferred, as far as the use of τε is concerned. Herodotus uses τε in a way that recalls epic diction; that is, bisyndetic τε with relatively short conjuncts, τε in τε καί connecting noun phrases, and τε with names to present shared knowledge. Thucydides—who, I repeat, overall employs more τε than Herodotus [115] --also recalls epic diction, especially in lists involving names of people or places, but not as frequently. This practice is in line with his other uses of and: he uses more often “sentential” τε, which is rare in early epic, and, in absolute terms, he uses καί much more often than Herodotus (6.7% of the total words, against 4%).

2.3.2 Further enrichments

§70. τε in Herodotus and in Thucydides typically performs a connective role. Previous analyses have shown that a pragmatic enrichment may be attached to several instances, including τε in the τε καί combinations (without intervening words). The implied meaning relates to encyclopedic and cultural knowledge, whether geographical or historical. If we were to put this enrichment into words, we would use an adverbial phrase such as “as we know” (see Bloch’s “bekanntlich”), or even a clause (“X is known with this name”). Those constituents would work non-propositionally, that is, they would indicate how to process the names or the encyclopedic information, rather than adding content to them.
§71. τε can convey further pragmatic meanings besides those related to shared knowledge. Some of them are indicated by Gonda (1954:195). They relate to the phrasal scope of τε in different genres. In our terms they represent possible further enrichments. At least two of them resonate with enrichments of καί that will be explored in the final section of this chapter: τε meaning “but” (e.g. Homer Iliad 1.167 ὀλίγον τε φίλον τε, “little but dear”), and τε meaning “or” (e.g. Homer Iliad 1.128 τριπλῇ τε τετραπλῇ τε, “three or four times”). In these cases τε fulfills its connective role, and at the same time it implies contrast (Gonda’s “adversative” meaning), or no commitment to one of the two conjuncts (Gonda’s “or” meaning). [116]
§72. Here I report a Herodotean passage where τε, according to Gonda, has an adversative value:
(t33)
ὁ δὲ Κώης, οἷά τε οὐ τύραννος δημότης τε ἐών, αἰτέει Μυτιλήνης τυραννεῦσαι …
Herodotus 5.11.2
But Coes, inasmuch as he was no tyrant but a plain citizen, asked that he might be made tyrant of Mytilene (tr. Godley)
After the Scythian expedition Darius retreats to Sardis, where he meets Histiaeus, tyrant of Myletus, and Coes, a military commander of the same city. Both had helped Darius by preserving a bridge over the Ister, which had allowed the Persian retreat. To thank them Darius asks what they want as compensation. Histiaeus asks to rule over the area of Myrcinus, whereas Coes asks to rule Mytilene (topic of (t33)). [117] οὐ τύραννος δημότης τε ἐών clearly sets a contrast, which rests on the semantic opposition between τύραννος and δημότης. But the contribution of τε in this co-text does not need to be that of an adversative conjunction. τε may just serve to single out δημότης as a specific addition or gloss to οὐ τύραννος, a piece of knowledge perhaps shared. δημότης τε may also correspond to an intonationally marked unit of information. [118]
§73. The two last paragraphs indicate two aspects of the use of τε with respect to καί. On the one hand the interpretations of enrichments produced by τε and by καί may coincide. This indicates a partial overlap in function that is comprehensible. On the other hand, on closer inspection each particle means more than and in a different way. By taking the “adversative meaning” as an example, τε contributes to a contrastive utterance by underscoring a piece of knowledge relevant to the contrast, whereas καί’s contribution – as we will see – is to underscore the link that still exists between two contrasting items.

2.3.3 τε “solitarium” and “sentential” τε

§74. I have not yet exhausted the multifunctionality of τε. οὐ τύραννος δημότης τε (t33) is an instance of τε followed by no καί and no τε. Scholars use the label τε “solitarium” for this τε construction. [119] In (t33) τε conjoins two noun phrases, τύραννος and δημότης. In the following passage τε comes with a verbal phrase:
(t34)
… μεταγιγνώσκω μετίημί τέ σε ἰέναι
Herodotus 1.40
… I change my thinking, and permit you to go to the chase (tr. AB)
The speaker here is Croesus, who, despite his anxiety, bows to his son’s pressure and lets him go hunt.
§75. When τε introduces an entire clause, as in the passage below, that clause may be thematically attached to a previous unit (either one or more clauses) to complement it in some way:
(t35)
Σύ νυν ἐμὲ ἐκκομίσας αὐτὸν καὶ χρήματα, τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἔχε, τὰ δὲ ἐμὲ ἔα ἔχειν· εἵνεκέν τε χρημάτων ἄρξεις ἁπάσης τῆς Ἑλλάδος. Εἰ δέ μοι ἀπιστέεις …
Herodotus 3.122.4
Now if you will transport me and my money, you may take some yourself and let me keep the rest; thus you shall have wealth enough to rule all Hellas. If you mistrust … (tr. Godley)
Here we have the central point of Oroetes (Persian governor of Sardis) in his message to the tyrant of Samos, Polycrates; it is part of the strategy that will bring the tyrant to death. After two coordinating main clauses (τὰ μὲν αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἔχε and τὰ δὲ ἐμὲ ἔα ἔχειν) a further main clause occurs, introduced by τε. εἵνεκέν τε χρημάτων starts a thought that complements the previous thought (σύ νυν …): it resumes the topic “money,” and it makes money the fundamental point of Polycrates’ political ambitions.
§76. In spite of the modern semicolon before εἵνεκέν in t37, the τε clause in fact is also a τε sentence. “Sentential” τε, as the adjective suggests, captures the fact that the scope of τε may be an entire sentence. Viger, originally writing in 1627, was the first to observe the phenomenon in Thucydides (Viger 18344:518). [120] In our modern editions “sentential” τε occurs in second position after a full stop, which paralinguistically signals a major discourse boundary. [121] This kind of τε regularly occurs in both Histories, with no distinctions in use between speeches and narrative sections.
§77. Basically, a “sentential” τε is a τε “solitarium” that has sentential scope. Since in this monograph we prefer to look at multi-act units rather than at sentences, [122] the next paragraphs introduce discourse functions of τε that shed light on moves. Two pragmatic types of τε connections in moves are identified in the two Histories, one is backward-oriented, the other forward-oriented.

2.3.4 τε connections backward-oriented: the coda effect

§78. τε can signal the speaker’s intention to attach some piece of information by suggesting, at the same time, an implied meaning dealing with the shape of the argument. Consider this famous Thucydidean passage:
(t36)
ὅσοι δὲ βουλήσονται τῶν τε γενομένων τὸ σαφὲς σκοπεῖν καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ποτὲ αὖθις κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τοιούτων καὶ παραπλησίων ἔσεσθαι, ὠφέλιμα κρίνειν αὐτὰ ἀρκούντως ἕξει. κτῆμά τε ἐς αἰεὶ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀγώνισμα ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα ἀκούειν ξύγκειται.
Thucydides 1.22.4
I shall be content if it [my history] is judged useful by those who will want to have a clear understanding of what happened—and, such is the human condition, will happen again at some time in the same or a similar pattern. It was composed as a permanent legacy, not a showpiece for a single hearing. (tr. Hammond)
As in (t35) above, this passage also features a τε that helps establish a logical link, in the form of a consequence, with the preceding sentence. This famous clause (usually quoted without τε) shows not only a generic connection with the previous thoughts, but also constitutes the end of an argument, the conclusion of a point. Gonda (1954:197), recalling the observations of Classen and Steup (1892-1922, vol. I:8), views this τε as having a “conclusive force”. [123] In Gonda’s terms, τε marks a complementarity that extends over one or more clauses, and stresses thematic or argumentative coherence. [124] Such τε clauses produce a coda effect, in content and form; indeed, they tend to be short. [125] The pragmatic enrichment consists, in these cases, in providing a metalinguistic “warning” that regards a move, a multi-act discourse unit. When τε introduces a short independent clause, it notifies us to connect the host clause with the co-text and context of previous clauses, and it warns us that the host discourse act ends some narrative or argumentative move.
§79. We have seen that τε can link one or more preceding clauses. In the case of coda effects, the backward orientation of the connection is over a chain of thematically bound clauses. Now, when τε with clausal scope occurs in the middle of an account or an episode, it is not always clear whether the host act works as an intermediate conclusion, or as a springboard for further development. The next passage is a case in point:
(t37)
Οἱ δ’ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς κώμης Μῆδοι ὁρῶντες αὐτοῦ τοὺς τρόπους δικαστήν μιν ἑωυτῶν αἱρέοντο· ὁ δὲ δή, οἷα μνώμενος ἀρχήν, ἰθύς τε καὶ δίκαιος ἦν. Ποιέων τε ταῦτα ἔπαινον εἶχε οὐκ ὀλίγον πρὸς τῶν πολιητέων, οὕτω ὥστε…ἄσμενοι ἐφοίτων παρὰ τὸν Δηιόκην καὶ αὐτοὶ δικασόμενοι, …
Herodotus 1.96.2-3
Then the Medes of the same town, seeing his behavior, chose him to be their judge, and he (for he coveted sovereign power) was honest and just. By acting so, he won no small praise from his fellow townsmen, to such an extent that … they came often and gladly to plead before Deioces … (tr. Godley)
Herodotus is relating how the Median Deioces took control of his people. ποιέων τε ταῦτα effects two things at once: it introduces the consequence, the result of Deioces’ behavior, and it starts a discourse unit that constitutes the climax of the story: Deioces wins the confidence of his people to such an extent that they end up believing he is the only reliable judge. Any connective word in a way is a hinge between previous and following material. My point here is that τε regards moves rather than single acts in both directions. As IV.3 will point out, a crucial feature that, especially in Herodotus, occurs in those moments is a οὗτος form. In (t37) we find ποιέων τε ταῦτα.

2.3.5 τε connections forward-oriented: τε as a projecting marker, and τε at the beginning of lists

§80. In this subsection I establish a correlation between a well-known function of τε and a move-scope function of τε that I define as “forward-oriented.” The well-known function is easily explained if we think of an important feature of bisyndetic τε. In such a construction the first τε signals—in its postpositive position—where the first of two or more conjuncts starts. Any τε at the beginning of multi-item lists shares this feature. In the past the phenomenon has driven scholars to abstract an essential function for τε: Hartung associates τε with the idea of “equality” (“Gleichmäßigkeit”); Gonda with the idea of “complementarity.” [126] This signalling function may seem obvious, but in fact it reveals an aspect of τε that is fundamental to the approach of this chapter, an aspect I define in terms of a metalinguistic meaning associated with a connective role. In the τε … καί constructions τε promises, so to speak, a correlation and metalinguistically guides us to find it. Whenever we come across a τε (say in Herodotus and in Thucydides), we look for a correlation. We fix in our mind the τε signal (which includes both τε and the constituent to which τε is attached), and, most probably, later in the text we find either another τε or, more typically, a καί that fulfills the promise together with a parallel constituent. Ιn these cases τε acts as a projection marker. The connective function of τε in τε καί, far from being superfluous, resides in its metalinguistic meaning, which is to warn us that a correlation is going to be established, and to signal where it begins. [127]
§81. Such metalinguistic projection proves to be particularly useful when more words or even clauses intervene between τε and καί; when the two conjuncts differ syntactically from each other; and when τε constituents are parallel in sense and syntax but separated by other coordinating markers. The following three passages feature each construction listed above. First, a sentence exemplifying the separation of τε and καί by many words and clauses:
(t38) [128]
δηλοῦσι δὲ | τῶν τε ἠπειρωτῶν τινὲς ἔτι καὶ νῦν, οἷς κόσμος καλῶς τοῦτο δρᾶν, καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ …
Thucydides 1.5.2
Further illustration is given by some of the mainlanders even now, who take successful piracy as a compliment, and by the ancient poets … (tr. Hammond)
τε projects complementarity as it invites a connection between τῶν ἠπειρωτῶν τινὲς and οἱ παλαιοί. Αt the same time, by virtue of signaling a specific upcoming correlation, the occurrence of τε assures us that δηλοῦσι δέ is a separate verbal phrase (which, in fact, is going to introduce a multi-act explanation).
§82. Now an example of τε conjoining syntactically different constituents:
(t39)
ἤν τε γνῶτε, Λακεδαιμονίοις ἔξεστιν ὑμῖν φίλους γενέσθαι βεβαίως, αὐτῶν τε προκαλεσαμένων χαρισαμένοις τε μᾶλλον ἢ βιασαμένοις.
Thucydides 4.20.3
And by decreeing the peace, you may make the Lacedaemonians your sure friends, inasmuch as they call you to it and are therein not forced but gratified. (tr. Hobbes)
Towards the end of a speech in which the Spartans, after being defeated in Pylos, propose a peace treaty with Athens, the chance of a firm friendship is put forward. Two circumstances (in fact alternative to each other) help ensure the anticipated bond: first, the Spartans themselves are the ones inviting peace; second, they are grateful for, not forced into, the peace. The two τε give balance to syntactic variation (the genitive absolute αὐτῶν τε προκαλεσαμένων, and the participles χαρισαμένοις … βιασαμένοις agreeing with Λακεδαιμονίοις).
§83. Finally, an instance where parallel constituents are separated by other coordinating markers:
(t40)
τά τε πρότερον ἀκοῇ μὲν λεγόμενα, ἔργῳ δὲ σπανιώτερον βεβαιούμενα οὐκ ἄπιστα κατέστη, σεισμῶν τε πέρι, οἳ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἅμα μέρος γῆς καὶ ἰσχυρότατοι οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐπέσχον, ἡλίου τε ἐκλείψεις, αἳ πυκνότεραι παρὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ πρὶν χρόνου μνημονευόμενα ξυνέβησαν, αὐχμοί τε ἔστι παρ’ οἷς μεγάλοι καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ λιμοὶ καὶ ἡ οὐχ ἥκιστα βλάψασα καὶ μέρος τι φθείρασα ἡ λοιμώδης νόσος
Thucydides 1.23.3
The phenomena in the old stories, more often told than attested, now became credible fact: earthquakes, which affected large areas with particular intensity; eclipses of the sun, occurring more frequently than in previous memory; major draughts in some parts, followed by famine; and, one of the most destructive causes of widespread death, the infectious plague. (tr. Hammond)
Here τε accompanies the mention of the cataclysmic events that characterized the Peloponnesian war, as a sign of its greater extent with respect to the Persian war. These elements of shared knowledge are earthquakes, eclipses, and draughts (σεισμῶν τε πέρι, ἡλίου τε ἐκλείψεις, and αὐχμοί τε). [129] Two καί conclude the list: καὶ λιμοί, and καί ἡ λοιμώδης νόσος. The discourse functions of καί are explored in the next section; here I anticipate that the way in which καί usually marks the last “spot” in lists is an enrichment that I render with “in particular.”
§84. In the projecting function I described, τε can be said to signal a partition at the same time as it isolates a component of that partition. Viewed this way, τε works similarly to the one theorized by Wentzel; in its partitive/distributive role (“there is this, there is that”) τε enables a series of items to maintain a sense of separateness.

2.3.6 τε starting moves

§85. Actually, a further τε occurs in (t40), that is, at its very beginning. τά τε invites considering the nouns that are attached to τά as a whole (τά πρότερον ἀκοῇ μὲν λεγόμενα, ἔργῳ δὲ σπανιώτερον βεβαιούμενα). In turn, this whole is completed by the predicate οὐκ ἄπιστα κατέστη. At the level of discourse units, this τε has scope over the entire list of phenomena. In light of that we may say that τε signals a move start.
§86. We may speculate about the lexical choice of the particle in connection with the mention of old and grand oral accounts (τά τε πρότερον ἀκοῇ μὲν λεγόμενα): if one of the potentials of τε is to recall shared knowledge, its use here seems almost ad hoc. In relation to that, I mention the fact that in Aristophanes τε occurs in choral songs ten times more than in dialogic parts. [130] The distribution of τε in comedy may reveal a genre-association with epic and lyric recalls of traditional material (whether to mock them or not), insofar as the content is about properties of entities, mythological accounts, similes, and names of people and places. [131] As for Thucydides, the allusions to the epic genre (ranging from lexicon to tone) are less explicit, albeit not absent. [132]
§87. The reading that the first τε in (t40) signals a move start is supported by the particles’ positions in the first sentence. By using the segmentation criteria proposed in IV.3, the boundaries are the following: τά τε πρότερον | ἀκοῇ μὲν λεγόμενα | ἔργῳ δὲ σπανιώτερον βεβαιούμενα | οὐκ ἄπιστα κατέστη. In other words, τά τε πρότερον works as a priming act projecting a multi-act unit (see ἀκοῇ μὲν and ἔργῳ δὲ). Therefore, it starts a move. This is the same pattern I have previously discussed about δέ (§24). Here is another instance:
(t41)
Αἰγινῆταί τε | φανερῶς μὲν οὐ πρεσβευόμενοι, δεδιότες τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, κρύφα δὲ οὐχ ἥκιστα μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐνῆγον τὸν πόλεμον, λέγοντες οὐκ εἶναι αὐτόνομοι κατὰ τὰς σπονδάς.
Thucydides 1.67.2
The Aeginetans did not send envoys openly, for fear of the Athenians, but in secret collaboration with the Corinthians they played a major part in instigating the war, claiming that they had lost the autonomy guaranteed under the treaty. (tr. Hammond)
Αἰγινῆταί τε opens and even dominates a multi-act unit about the initiatives of the Aeginetans before the Corinthians meet their allies in Sparta (in 432 BCE). The main subcomponents of this unit are signaled by φανερῶς μὲν and κρύφα δέ.

2.3.7 Backward and forward τε connections: Intonational parallels?

§88. As for prosodic equivalents of what ancient Greek particles seem to perform, in this monograph we limit ourselves to intuitive suggestions rather than claims. [133] The question in the title of this subsection reflects that. Nonetheless, we believe that making parallels with modulations in intonation, which are familiar to us, helps to understand that particles are integral to the meaning of messages.
§89. Earlier (§78; §80; nn84 and 126) I mentioned Gonda’s idea that complementarity underlies most of the usages of τε. The domain within which the scholar sees complementarity is semantic and syntactic. We may translate the same idea into a different domain, that is, intonation. The metalinguistic projection that τε signposts whenever it accompanies the first conjunct of a τε … καί construction can be compared to what in different modern Indoeuropean languages is a dedicated intonational contour. As for (t40), for example, τε may correspond to a paralinguistic sign; that is, τε may signal the start of an intonational pattern that is repeated over all the constituents of a list, which makes it a “list intonation.” [134] Thus, metalinguistic projection would be combined with prosodic projection. [135]
§90 Just as τε projecting a complement in τε ... καί may reflect a list intonation, τε in the coda effect may reflect an intonational contour that conveys the end of an argument. The contour would obviously differ from the list contour. [136] I wonder whether “epic” τε in relative clauses might have suggested some specific intonational pattern as well. What matters here is neither to demonstrate that this was the case, nor to show how general or specific τε patterns could have sounded (both being impossible tasks). Rather, the point is that we should entertain the possibility that ancient Greek τε in its various constructions marked various types of prosodic discontinuity.

2.3.8 Interim conclusion

§91. In this section I have shown that considering τε in dichotomous terms, either copulative or “epic,” obscures the rich range of its discourse functions. The examples have illustrated how τε impacts phrases, clauses, and larger units; or in discourse terms, they affect both acts and moves. The forces of τε concern the presentation of conjuncts but also the perspective of speakers. Finally, the connective role may coexist with different types of enrichment pragmatically derived from the co-text. The example from Lysias I quoted at the beginning, (t23), condenses all these aspects: τε has scope over the main clause (“sentential” τε), which unquestionably is thematically connected to the preceding clauses. At the same time the statement about the rightness of Athenians’ life from its origins most likely represented an opinion shared—and even endorsed—by the receivers. And last, τε carries an enrichment wherein the host clause is imbued with an epic tone, as befits the status of the speech as epitaph. [137]
§92. The main results of the investigation into the uses of τε in Herodotus and Thucydides are the following. Several times τε in both authors occurs together with names of people or names of places. This is how τε marks knowledge as shared in the historiographical genre. In the context of telling historical events and providing related accounts, shared knowledge amounts to encyclopedic and cultural knowledge. Except for a few cases where the correlation with a following καί is questionable, the shared-knowledge pragmatic enrichment coexists with the syndetic role. Another important enrichment is constituted by the metalinguistic signal provided by τε in the τε … καί constructions. In those cases τε projects a correlation (see Gonda’s idea of complementarity). τε helps the receiver to track which constituents are conjoined, and where the correlation starts. The occurrences of τε “solitarium” (i.e. not accompanied by any τε or καί), once analyzed from a discourse perspective that considers multi-act units, reveal that they can serve to close as well as open discourse moves, and thus can possess a force beyond their actual scope, (that is, the single clause in which they are hosted). I have also made an open-ended observation on the correspondence between the occurrence of τε in lists, and the occurrence of a list intonation in modern languages. Finally, I have delineated some ways in which the two authors differ in their use of τε. From partial counts it seems that Herodotus uses more τε with noun phrases, and more τε καί with names. Thucydides uses fewer τε καί with names, and more τε with clausal scope.

2.4 καί between link and climax

§93. Not differently from δέ and τε, καί in Classical historiography is employed in a variety of syntactic and semantic environments, where it reveals its potential beyond the connective and adverbial roles assigned by the theoria recepta. The scholarship does acknowledge peculiar functions of καί (for example, καί adversativum), but it usually presents them as peripheral uses, reserving center stage for καί in the senses of either “and” or “also/even.” Moreover, we find few discussions of καί as such in Herodotus and Thucydides, largely due to commentators’ understandable interest in the content of historical accounts. Yet, however simple the function of καί may be, its occurrence is indispensable. As we process words and clauses, καί enables us to link information, actions, thoughts, procedures, comments, and conclusions in an orderly fashion.
§94. In this section I argue that καί encompasses a range of meanings broader than what received scholarship has allowed it, such as “just” and “for example.” Its very frequent employment (especially in Thucydides [138] ) also calls for some explanation. My goals, then, will be to uncover the main discourse functions of καί in the two Histories, and to spotlight instances where καί is not discussed as it ought to be. [139] In line with our general methodology, I consider καί’s roles beyond the clause and sentence level. I also continue to use the term enrichment to illustrate the particle’s different implied meanings (what we as readers infer); these implied meanings correspond to adverbial meanings attached to connective roles. Finally, I retrieve and extend an idea that German philologists in the nineteenth century proposed about καί, namely the idea of “Steigerung” (“climax”). This idea constitutes what fundamentally distinguishes καί from τε and δέ.

2.4.1 καί in combinations

§95. Some forces of καί are underdiscussed in the literature. They can be observed when καί appears alone as well as when καί appears in combinations. Combinations are particularly revealing, for two reasons. First, combinations, more frequently than individual particles, contribute metalinguistic or metanarrative meaning above the clausal level (thus marking multi-clause units). Second, they illuminate the range of contributions of individual καί, in combinations where each particle has its own force, and in clusters where one overall force is conveyed. [140] My analysis starts from the combinations καὶ δὴ καί, καί τι καί, καὶ γάρ, and καὶ δή.
§96. καὶ δὴ καί occurs especially in Herodotus and Plato. [141] The literature agrees that its function in Herodotus is to introduce a topic that will be dealt with over subsequent clauses. Dik (1995:45-47) refers to Denniston (1950:254-255), who defines this function as a “secondary meaning of καὶ δὴ καί, marking a transition from general to particular”; [142] she explains: “the ‘and especially’ part (καὶ δὴ καί) singles out one element, which then forms a convenient connection to the next stage in the narrative” (1994:46; italics in the text). Let us recall a representative example:
(t42)
τούτῳ τῷ Γύγῃ καὶ τὰ σπουδαιέστερα τῶν πρηγμάτων ὑπερετίθετο ὁ Κανδαύλης καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ εἶδος τῆς γυναικὸς ὑπερεπαινέων.
Herodotus 1.8.1
“…Candaules not only discussed his most important business with him, but even used to make him listen to eulogies of his wife’s beauty” (tr. De Sélincourt and Marincola).
The beauty of Candaules’ wife is singled out by καὶ δὴ καί, which warns us that the subject is going to be expanded and thematized over the next few acts. Building upon Denniston’s and Dik’s remarks, I suggest that the combination works as a cluster. Its overall force is both cognitive and metanarrative: on the cognitive side it triggers our interest in a particular element of the discourse and it invites us to narrow our attention to that element; on the metanarrative side it signals that that element is going to be developed further. Wennerstrom points out that in spoken narratives we may exploit emphatic prosody to mark a specific word or phrase that is going to play a significant role in what follows. [143] καὶ δὴ καί works similarly. [144]
§97. In Plato καὶ δὴ καί can perform a similar focusing discourse function. [145] In Thucydides this cluster does not occur at all, but the rare combination καί τι καί [146] is employed to convey a similar force in the following passage:
(t43)
τό τε Πελαργικὸν καλούμενον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, ὃ καὶ ἐπάρατόν τε ἦν μὴ οἰκεῖν καί τι καὶ Πυθικοῦ μαντείου ἀκροτελεύτιον τοιόνδε διεκώλυε, λέγον ὡς ‘τὸ Πελαργικὸν ἀργὸν ἄμεινον,’ ὅμως ὑπὸ τῆς παραχρῆμα ἀνάγκης ἐξῳκήθη.
Thucydides 2.17.1
The area below the Acropolis known as the “Pelargic” was under a curse prohibiting occupation, and there was also the tag-end of a Delphic oracle to the same effect, saying “Best to let the Pelargic rest”: but even so it was occupied in the immediate emergency. (tr. Hammond)
The communicative intention underlying the use of καί τι καί is to go into detail. In this passage καί τι καί introduces a specification on an oracle about the Pelargikón, which Thucydides then presents and comments on. [147] The discourse discontinuity marked by καί τι καί generates a narrative expansion-effect built upon a thematic link, which lasts until the end of the excerpt. [148]
§98. Another combination that conveys both the idea of expansion and the intention to specify things is καὶ γάρ. [149]
(t44)
Ἅτε δὲ ἐουσέων μυριάδων πολλέων καὶ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐργαζομένου ἤνετο τὸ ἔργον· καὶ γὰρ λίθοι καὶ πλίνθοι καὶ ξύλα καὶ φορμοὶ ψάμμου πλήρεες ἐσεφορέοντο, καὶ ἐλίνυον οὐδένα χρόνον οἱ βοηθήσαντες ἐργαζόμενοι, οὔτε νυκτὸς οὔτε ἡμέρης.
Herodotus 8.71.2
Since there were many tens of thousands and everyone worked, the task was completed, as they brought in stones and bricks and logs and baskets full of sand. At no moment of the day or night did those who had marched out there rest from their work. (tr. Godley)
In order to avoid an inland attack by the Persians, the Peloponnesians rush to the Isthmus to build a defensive wall. In this passage Herodotus describes their intense work. After a general statement about the completion of the task, he specifies what the work consisted of, and how quickly it went. καὶ γάρ introduces that specification. While the pragmatic role of καί is to signal the shift to the details of a certain circumstance, [150] the role of γάρ is to illustrate and to expand on the previous point by supplying further information. [151] Therefore, I regard καὶ γάρ as a combination rather than a cluster: each particle in the combination fulfills one of its discourse roles. What makes this combination work well is the fact that these two roles complement each other.
§99. In the next example, καί in the same combination καὶ γάρ shows a force that corresponds to “namely” in English:
(t45)
Οἱ δὲ ἀμφὶ τὸν Πείσανδρον … ὁπλίτας ἔχοντες σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ξυμμάχους ἦλθον ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας. καὶ καταλαμβάνουσι τὰ πλεῖστα τοῖς ἑταίροις προειργασμένα. καὶ γὰρ Ἀνδροκλέα τέ τινα τοῦ δήμου μάλιστα προεστῶτα ξυστάντες τινὲς τῶν νεωτέρων κρύφα ἀποκτείνουσιν, ὅσπερ καὶ τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐξήλασε, …
Thucydides 8.65.1-2
Peisander and his colleagues, … took on board hoplites who would support them. When they reached Athens they found most of the work already done by the members of the cabals. A group of younger men had conspired to have one Androcles quietly murdered: he … had been instrumental in the banishment of Alcibiades … (tr. Hammond)
The original text is much more discontinuous and vivid than the English translation, which by necessity conforms to its own stylistic and grammatical standards. Hammond groups the arrival in Athens and what Peisander and his fellows find; Thucydides devotes an independent clause to the finding, which starts with καί and the present tense καταλαμβάνουσι. Then, the general statement “they found most of the work already done by the members” is followed by καὶ γάρ, which introduces the name of Androcles, whose murder is subsequently related. [152] While the English translation focuses on clarity in content and in agency, the Greek shows something more: the relation between the general statement and the plan to murder Androcles, by means of καὶ γάρ, which expands (γάρ) and specifies (καί); and the cognitive salience of Androcles, who is the target of the fellows’ conspiration, by means of Ἀνδροκλέα immediately after καὶ γάρ. Incidentally, I let the reader note that τε accompanies Ἀνδροκλέα and is not followed by any καί; it signposts τινα τοῦ δήμου as an apposition, similarly to the apposition analysed in (t33), and it presents the information in terms of shared knowledge.
§100. The last combination that signals a change from general to particular is καὶ δή, which occurs 51 times in Herodotus, and not at all in Thucydides. The main discourse function of καὶ δή in Herodotus is related to the previous combinations in that it conveys the intention to detail and pin down. Here is an instance:
(t46)
Περὶ Σάρδις μὲν δὴ ἐγίνετο ταραχή, Ἱστιαῖον δὲ ταύτης ἀποσφαλέντα τῆς ἐλπίδος Χῖοι κατῆγον ἐς Μίλητον, αὐτοῦ Ἱστιαίον δεηθέντος. Οἱ δὲ Μιλήσιοι ἄσμενοι ἀπαλλαχθέντες καὶ Ἀρισταγόρεω οὐδαμῶς πρόθυμοι ἦσαν ἄλλον τύραννον δέκεσθαι ἐς τὴν χώρην, οἷα ἐλευθερίης γευσάμενοι. Καὶ δή, νυκτὸς γὰρ ἐούσης βίῃ ἐπειρᾶτο κατιὼν ὁ Ἱστιαῖος ἐς τὴν Μίλητον, τιτρώσκεται τὸν μηρὸν ὑπό τεο τῶν Μιλησίων.
Herodotus 6.5.1-2
So troubles arose in Sardis. Since he failed in this hope, the Chians brought Histiaeus back to Miletus at his own request. But the Milesians were glad enough to be rid of Aristagoras himself, and they had no wish to receive another tyrant into their country now that they had tasted freedom. When Histiaeus tried to force his way into Miletus by night, he was wounded in the thigh by a Milesian.
After setting out the general situation—Histiaeus trying to reach Miletus, and the Milesians unwilling to host him—Herodotus homes in on a specific fact and a specific moment, introducing this discourse act with καὶ δή. As a syntactically isolated cluster—note the subsequent νυκτὸς γάρ, which suggests an act boundary [153] —καὶ δή announces to listeners and readers that some exciting news is to follow. The present tense τιτρώσκεται adds to the vividness of the Greek. A translation closer to the Greek would be “Look what happened. At night Histiaeus tried to enter Miletus. He is wounded in the thigh by some Milesian.” The excitement relates to the instantaneity of an event. [154]
§101. Such a use of καὶ δή is not only Herodotean:
(t47)
… Φέρε, τίν’ οὖν <ἂν> ἄγγελον
πέμψαιμ’ ἐπ’ αὐτόν; Οἶδ’ ἐγὼ καὶ δὴ πόρον
ἐκ τοῦ Παλαμήδους. ...
Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae 769-770
… Let me see, whom could I best send to him? Ha! I know a means taken from Palamedes … (tr. O’Neill).
The speaker, a relative of Euripides, realizes on the spot how he might send a message to Euripides, and καὶ δή signals the immediacy of the realization. Once again καὶ δή is syntactically isolated from the rest of the sentence (see the translation “Ha!”), and its position is in the middle of the clause. [155] Not differently from καὶ δὴ καί, καὶ δή works as a cluster. Τhe individual forces of the two particles blend together and converge upon one pragmatic effect, which is to place focus on an instantaneous and perceptual fact. [156]

2.4.2 Using καί to pin down

§102. The καί combinations I have commented on so far carry an enrichment that we term, for convenience, “pinning down.” I now turn to the same enrichment possessed by καί when it appears all by itself. καί sometimes pins down a preceding concept or information by expanding on it through concrete instances (“for example”), or through a more detailed account (“namely”; German “und zwar”). [157] The particle can also illustrate that concept in more specific terms (“that is to say,” “that is”). [158] Let us consider the following passage:
(t48)
ἐπεγένετο δὲ ἄλλοις τε ἄλλοθι κωλύματα μὴ αὐξηθῆναι, καὶ Ἴωσι προχωρησάντων ἐπὶ μέγα τῶν πραγμάτων Κῦρος καὶ ἡ Περσικὴ βασιλεία Κροῖσον καθελοῦσα …
Thucydides 1.16.1
There ensued a range of obstacles to the progress of the various Greek states. The Ionians, for example, had been developing strongly, but then Cyrus and the Persian kingdom destroyed Croesus … (tr. Hammond)
Hammond translates καί with “for example.” The translation gives priority to the adverbial function entailed by the enrichment, “to pin down.” In the Greek the use of καί simply means that the adverbial and the connective functions coexist.
§103. In the previous section I argued that τε shows the same functional overlap, in general terms: its connective function may have an adverbial enrichment. Similarly, when καί occurs after relative pronouns, it recalls aspects of τε’s behavior. In these cases καί must be processed together with the preceding word instead of the following, unless the word after καί invites a scalar, or an “also,” interpretation. Let me revisit the beginning of Thucydides 2.17.1 (earlier quoted because of καί τι καί):
(t49)
τό τε Πελαργικὸν καλούμενον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, ὃ καὶ ἐπάρατόν τε ἦν μὴ οἰκεῖν καί τι καὶ …
Thucydides 2.17.1
The area below the Acropolis, called ‘the Pelargic, which—let me add—was under a curse prohibiting occupation, and … (tr. adapted from Hammond)
If we read the second τε in this passage (the one following ἐπάρατόν) as a marker of complementarity “answered” by καὶ τι καί, the two connected elements are ἐπάρατόν … ἦν μὴ οἰκεῖν and everything that follows καὶ τι καί. [159] Therefore, the solo καί is attached to the relative pronoun. [160] Scholars who comment on relative pronouns followed by καί stress the effect of logical tightness between the contents of main and sub-clauses. [161] Denniston (1950:250) adds, “καί following a relative (…) often gives an effect of limitation by imposing an additional qualification.” In this passage, ὅ initiates a little excursus on the Pelargic area, [162] and καί contributes the sense of an additional qualification with regard to that area. [163] The pragmatic function, then, of καί in syntactic contexts like this is to signal a narrative expansion (see the translation “let me add”), wherein a specific aspect of the relative pronoun’s referent will be focused on. [164]
§104. I see a similar pragmatic function in καί after the interrogative marker ποῖος in Sophocles. The following French translation is drawn from an illuminating argument by Humbert about καί.
(t50)
Μόρῳ δὲ ποίῳ καί σφε βουλεύῃ κτανεῖν;
Sophocles Antigone 772
Quelle mort, au juste, as-tu le design de lui infliger? “Which death, exactly, do you plan to inflict on her?” (tr. Humbert 1960:412)
The chorus asks Creon how he intends to put Antigone to death. [165] Humbert quotes this line to exemplify καί’s ability to express “better approximation” (“meilleure approximation,” 1960:412). He posits that by means of καί the speaker either makes the conditions of reality more precise or asks the interlocutor to do so. [166] Griffith, in his commentary suggests (1999:253), “By what kind of death exactly?”. Humbert’s attention to this force of καί is unprecedented, although previous literature gestures toward the general idea; [167] it is his interpretation that correlates best with our own views about καί’s capacity for specifying, detailing, pinning down, and gaining in precision.
§105. καί can be used to pin down in many ways; one of them is to focus in on a character, or on a moment in an ongoing account. The following passage, in which καί impacts a number of clauses, illustrates how καί marks the intention to elaborate:
(t51)
ἐνθαῦτα κατέβη αὐτὸς Ξέρξης ἐπὶ τὰς νέας, … Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἀπικόμενος προΐζετο, παρῆσαν μετάπεμπτοι οἱ τῶν ἐθνέων τῶν σφετέρων τύραννοι καὶ ταξίαρχοι ἀπὸ τῶν νεῶν, καὶ ἵζοντο ὥς σφι βασιλεὺς ἑκάστῳ τιμὴν ἐδεδώκεε, πρῶτος μὲν ὁ Σιδώνιος βασιλεύς, μετὰ δὲ ὁ Τύριος, ἐπὶ δὲ ὧλλοι. Ὡς δὲ κόσμῳ ἐπεξῆς ἵζοντο …
Herodotus 8.67.1-2
Xerxes himself went down to the ships. … He came and sat on his throne, and present at his summons were the tyrants of all the peoples and the company leaders from the fleet. They sat according to the honor which the king had granted each of them, first the king of Sidon, then the king of Tyre, then the rest. When they sat in order one after another, … (tr. Godley)
Here καί introduces a number of visual details. After priming us with references to the relevant characters (king Xerxes and the other prominent leaders), Herodotus, by means of καὶ ἵζοντο, proceeds to specify who was where, in what order they sat, and why. [168] καί’s force – its connective function combined with the meaning of its enrichment – amounts to “and, let me zoom in and detail the scene.” It takes many words to spell this out in English; in the Greek, καί alone is sufficient and economical.

2.4.3 Using καί to mark narrative peaks

§106. Let us turn to a function of καί where it marks narrative peaks. Pinning down in this case entails defining the highest moment of a course of action. These solo instances of καί, like καὶ δὴ καί and καὶ γάρ, have scope over multi-act units, and like καὶ δή, focus on a specific fact. Allan observes that Thucydides makes use of καί in combination with short paratactic clauses (often including an historical present-tense verb) at the peak of an episode (2007:93-94; 115). [169] A passage that I quoted earlier, (t45), contains an instance of this kind of καί:
(t52)
Οἱ δὲ ἀμφὶ τὸν Πείσανδρον … ὁπλίτας ἔχοντες σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ξυμμάχους ἦλθον ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας. καὶ καταλαμβάνουσι τὰ πλεῖστα τοῖς ἑταίροις προειργασμένα.
Thucydides 8.65.1-2
Peisander and his colleagues, … took on board hoplites who would support them. When they reached Athens they found most of the work already done by the members of the cabals. (tr. Hammond)
Hammond’s translation opts for temporal continuity in the narration (“they took …,” “they reached …,” “they found …”). The Greek, however, shows a change in tense from imperfect to present (ἦλθον – καταλαμβάνουσι), which enhances the foregrounding effect and sense of immediacy: Peisander and his colleagues’ discovery, as a result, emerges as pivotal and particularly exciting. [170]
§107. This type of καί is related to what Basile (1998:714) calls “καί di rottura” (“breaking-off καί”); like cum inversum in Latin, καί may introduce a surprising, unexpected, new or simply exciting event. A fitting translation in Italian would be “quand’ecco (che)/ed ecco”. In English, postponed when-clauses do the same thing (for instance, “I was sleeping, when the bell rang”). [171] The following passage contains a τε … καί construction, where the καί works in the manner just described. Fulfilling this function does not interfere with the correlating function it performs as part of a τε … καί [172] unit:
(t53)
Ἠώς τε δὴ διέφαινε καὶ οἳ ἐγένοντο ἐπ’ ἀκρωτηρίῳ τοῦ ὄρεος
Herodotus 7.217.2
Then dawn was appearing, when they [the Persians] reached the summit of the top of the mountain… [173] (tr. Godley)
The Persians have reached the top of mountain Oeta, through the track that takes them to the Thermopylae. All in all, καί seems to be capable of marking an increased degree of either precision (better approximation) or narrative interest. In a word, it leads to a climax.

2.4.4 Using καί to start narrative expansions

§108. The sole καί can perform a further discourse function in common with καὶ δὴ καί, καὶ γάρ, and καί after relative pronouns. This function relates to narrative expansion, and is
recognizable in a particle pattern I already discussed in the sections on δέ and on τε. The pattern is “καί | x μέν”; it indicates that at least a second clause introduced by a particle will follow the x μέν clause, and that καί regulates both.
(t54)
καὶ μάχης γενομένης ἰσορρόπου πρὸς Κορινθίους διεκρίθησαν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ ἐνόμισαν αὐτοὶ ἑκάτεροι οὐκ ἔλασσον ἔχειν ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ. καὶ | οἱ μὲν Ἀθηναῖοι … τροπαῖον ἔστησαν· οἱ δὲ Κορίνθιοι … ἡμέραις ὕστερον δώδεκα … ἀνθίστασαν τροπαῖον καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς νικήσαντες.
Thucydides 1.105.6
And when there was an well-balanced battle with the Corinthians, the two sides separated from each other. And each considered they had not the smaller part in the action. AND, the Athenians … set up a trophy; the Corinthians … after twelve days … set a trophy in opposition, as if they too won. (tr. Hammond)
After two καί that have a one-clause scope (καί … διεκρίθησαν; καί … ἐνόμισαν), the third appears more isolated, as it is followed by a οἱ μέν clause answered later by a οἱ δέ clause. Τhis καί functions as a super-linker embracing the content of both the μέν and the δέ clause. [174] Earlier in the chapter (§46) I mentioned that these phenomena indicate a “discourse hierarchy,” as opposed to a syntactic hierarchy, because it is a configuration of coordinating particles that signals it. [175] Prosodically emphatic and in English (see the capital letters in the translation) is applied when and has a scope larger than a clausal one. [176] In those cases it constitutes a separate intonation unit (rendered in writing by a comma after it). Pragmatically, this amounts to assigning an enriched metanarrative meaning to that “and,” which I paraphrase as “and this is what happened.”
§109. Other narrative expansions are introduced by καί together with wordings that explicitly tell, or enable us to predict, the communicative goal of the upcoming acts. After quoting an oracle about the Pelargic area (see above (t43) and (t49)), Thucydides gives us his own interpretation of it:
(t55)
καί μοι δοκεῖ τὸ μαντεῖον τοὐναντίον ξυμβῆναι ἢ προσεδέχοντο· οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὴν παράνομον ἐνοίκησιν αἱ ξυμφοραὶ γενέσθαι τῇ πόλει, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἡ ἀνάγκη τῆς οἰκήσεως, ὃν οὐκ ὀνομάζον τὸ μαντεῖον προῄδει μὴ ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ ποτὲ αὐτὸ κατοικισθησόμενον.
Thucydides 2.17.2
My view is that the oracle was fulfilled, but in the reverse of the general expectation. It was not the unlawful occupation which caused the disasters of the city, but the war which forced the occupation: without specific reference to the war the oracle was predicting that the area would never be occupied to a good end. (tr. Hammond)
καί μοι δοκεῖ enacts a shift from reportage to commentary and evaluation. The word cluster warns us, metanarratively, that the historian is about to provide an assessment of the oracle, which in this case extends over several clauses. [177]
§110. We may say that καί μοι δοκεῖ starts a move, that is, the pursuit of a communicative goal by means of multiple acts. In this case μοι δοκεῖ works as a semantic clue substantiating the overarching evaluative goal of the move. This example further supports the idea that a καί move can only be understood through the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of what surrounds καί.
§111. A similar use of καί marking a move transition is possible in forensic oratory:
(t56)
Καί μοι κάλει Καλλίαν καὶ Στέφανον. <Mάρτυρες> Κάλει δὲ καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Ἀλέξιππον·
Andocides On Mysteries 17
Kindly call Callias and Stephanus—yes, and call Philippus and Alexippus. (tr. Maidment)
Andocides himself is talking to the court. The first καί (“And now …”) starts not only the sentence but also a new section of the defense. The men called by name are indirectly connected to Lydus, the last of the four witnesses Andocides recalls before defending himself. The text goes on with a brief presentation of the four individuals (chapter 18), after which the jury examines them.

2.4.5 Using καί to wrap accounts up

§112. Besides marking move starts, καί acts can mark move ends, especially in Thucydides. [178] At move ends the καί act wraps up major narrative sections. In these cases the first conjunct is a sizable multi-act unit that occurs before καί, while the second conjunct is just one act:
(t57)
καὶ τὸ θέρος ἐτελεύτα.
Thucydides, passim [179]
And so, summer ended. (tr. AB)
This simple Thucydidean discourse act regularly rounds off several chapters reporting the events of a particular summer. The narrative relevance is evident: the historian steps back from his piecemeal account, and establishes a link between the preceding utterances as a whole, and the present one. [180] Functionally this statement is similar to the “and they lived happily ever after” formula we find at the end of folktales, which I mentioned in the introduction. [181]
§113. So far I have mainly considered καί linking portions of discourse that exceed one clause or one act. The following passage shows more καί occurring near each other but having different scope and conveying different forces. [182] This use of καί does not represent an exception but rather a common feature we continually encounter in our reading, especially of Thucydides’ text. [183]
(t58)
πάντα τε πρὸς τὸ παραχρῆμα περιδεές, ὅπερ φιλεῖ δῆμος ποιεῖν, ἑτοῖμοι ἦσαν εὐτακτεῖν. καὶ ὡς ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐποίουν ταῦτα, καὶ τὸ θέρος ἐτελεύτα.
Thucydides 8.1.4
As tends to happen in a democracy, the people were ready to embrace any form of discipline in the panic of the moment, so they proceeded to implement the decisions they had taken. So the summer ended. {Indentation} (tr. Hammond)
The Greek narrative and syntactic pace of this passage can hardly be rendered in English. The three καί intensify the connection between different kinds of events, and almost iconically speed them up. At the same time, each καί introduces its own communicative act. The first καί links the description of the Athenians’ attitude to its instantiation: Thucydides illustrates εὐτακτεῖν, perhaps with some nuance of distrust, as a smooth combination of planning and acting (“Which means: as things seemed good to them, …”). This interpretation suits the Greek word order καί | ὡς …, which suggests that καί’s scope covers both the ὡς clause and the main clause ἐποίουν ταῦτα. The main clause, in turn, is introduced by the second καί, an “apodotic” καί. [184] The communicative act in this case involves signposting a climax as the narrative transitions from relating the Athenians’ judgment to relating its exact implementation (ταῦτα being as salient as ἐποίουν). [185] Finally, the third καί introduces an act that rounds off the narration of summer events. [186]

2.4.6 Enrichments of καί when καί is untranslated

§114. In the introduction to this chapter (§11) I flagged that and in English sometimes possesses enrichments such as “and then,” or “and on the other hand.” The analyses of Greek texts so far suggested paraphrases of enriched καί such as “and in particular,” “and here it what happened,” “and—let me add— ...” In general, English translations of Herodotus and Thucydides do not omit καί, except when too many καί follow each other in Thucydides (which is not infrequent). [187] When they go untranslated and the co-text does not offer too many other καί, it is possbible that an enrichment occurs, which is difficult to render in words. Let us focus on three excerpts attesting to that:
(t59)
Ἐν δὲ τούτῳ, ὅσοι Ἑρμαῖ ἦσαν λίθινοι ἐν τῇ πόλει τῇ Ἀθηναίων … μιᾷ νυκτὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι περιεκόπησαν τὰ πρόσωπα. καὶ τοὺς δράσαντας ᾔδει οὐδείς, ἀλλὰ μεγάλοις μηνύτροις δημοσίᾳ οὗτοί τε ἐζητοῦντο καὶ προσέτι ἐψηφίσαντο, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλο τι οἶδεν ἀσέβημα γεγενημένον, μηνύειν ἀδεῶς τὸν βουλόμενον καὶ ἀστῶν καὶ ξένων καὶ δούλων. καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα μειζόνως ἐλάμβανον· τοῦ τε γὰρ …
Thucydides 6.27.1-2
While these preparations were still in train, most of the stone Herms in the city of Athens had their faces mutilated in one night … . Nobody knew the perpetrators, but large rewards were publicly offered for information leading to their detection, and a decree was also passed giving immunity to any citizens, foreigner, or slave, who volunteered knowledge of any other desecration. The Athenians took the matter more seriously still, … (tr. Hammond)
(t60)
Ἐθάμβεον δὲ ὁρέων χρυσῷ τε καὶ εἵμασι κεκοσμημένον, πρὸς δὲ καὶ κλαυθμὸν κατεστεῶτα ἐμφανέα ἐν Ἁρπάγου. Καὶ πρόκατε δὴ κατ’ ὁδὸν πυνθάνομαι τὸν πάντα λόγονθεράποντος ὃς ἐμὲ προπέμπων ἔξω πόλιος ἐνεχείρισε τὸ βρέφος, ὡς ἄρα Μανδάνης τε εἴη παῖς τῆς Ἀστυάγεος θυγατρὸς καὶ Καμβύσεω τοῦ Κύρου, καί μιν Ἀστυάγης ἐντέλλεται ἀποκτεῖναι. Νῦν τε ὅδε ἐστί.
Herodotus 1.111.4-5
But I was amazed at seeing him adorned with gold and clothing, and at hearing, too, the evident sound of weeping in the house of Harpagus. Very soon on the way I learned the whole story from the servant who brought me out of the city and gave the child into my custody: namely, that it was the son of Mandane the king’s daughter and Cambyses the son of Cyrus, and that Astyages gave the command to kill him. And [188] now, here he is. (tr. Godley)
(t61)
[The Paeonians had given it [=..] to the Thracians, and when Xerxes demanded it back, they said that the horses had been carried off from pasture by the Thracians of the hills who dwelt about the headwaters of the Strymon.]
Ἔνθα καὶ ὁ τῶν Βισαλτέων βασιλεὺς γῆς τε τῆς Κρηστωνικῆς Θρῆιξ ἔργον ὑπερφυὲς ἐργάσατο·
Herodotus 8.116.1
It was then that a monstrous deed was done by the Thracian king of the Bisaltae and the Crestonian country. (tr. Godley)
Perhaps the translators, perceiving that these καί logically link their respective conjuncts together in several possible ways, wished to leave the ultimate interpretation up to the reader. Let us see which implications of καί in these co-texts and contexts can be inferred. In the first passage, (t59), the first καί follows the news about the mutilation of the Herms: “καί nobody knew who had done this.” Readers are invited to enrich the basic additive function. Possibly this καί clause implies some pinning-down with regard to the agents (after the passive περιεκόπησαν): “and the problem was that nobody knew who had done it.” [189]
§115. The second excerpt, (t60), deals more directly with what scholars in the past have called καί adversativum. [190] The speaker is the herdsman who had been ordered to abandon on the hills the baby that Harpagus had given to him. By means of καὶ πρόκατε δὴ κατ’ ὁδὸν πυνθάνομαι a significant shift is expressed, from the past in which he wondered at the baby’s rich dress (ἐθάμβεον) to the hic et nunc (πρόκατε δή) in which he learns the whole story (πυνθάνομαι). [191] Verdenius (1975:190) sees in this use of καί an adversative nuance: the herdsman had only been able to surmise the origins of the baby before, but now he has confirmation, and knows the baby’s identity. [192] The adversative nuance simply comes from the potential of καί. Like and in English, καί can convey several enrichments, but being one of them. If speakers choose and to imply but, it means that they prefer to stress the connection between two contrasting facts rather than their difference. [193] In the case of this Herodotean excerpt, the herdsman, by means of καί, not only juxtaposes his suspects and the truth, but he also marks the peak of his narration.
§116. As for the third excerpt, (t61), I interpret καί as “exactly,” “just,” in combination with ἔνθα (“there,” although Godley’s translation opts for the temporal sense “then”). The sense is not so much to add further information about a previous topic, as to isolate with precision, and climactically, the site of the prodigious occurrence about to be described. I advance that ἔνθα may at the same time identify the “slot” in the narrator’s mind devoted to the recall of that prodigious occurrence. In other words, ἔνθα may blend physical and mental geography. [194]

2.4.7 καί as “or”

§117. Let us now turn to the narrowest scope that καί can have, that is, over noun and adjectival phrases. In Herodotus I find instances of καί in co-texts that yield an enrichment apparently different from all those analyzed so far, that is, the implication “or.” Let us consider one of them:
(t62)
καὶ λέγουσι οὗτοι … ὡς τὰς βασιληίας ἱστίας ἐπιώρκηκε ὃς καὶ ὅς, λέγοντες τῶν ἀστῶν τὸν ἂν δὴ λέγωσι·
Herodotus 4.68.1
… and they generally tell him that such and such a man (naming whoever it may be of the people) has sworn falsely by the king’s hearth; (tr. Godley)
The historian is describing the Scythian practice of divination when the king is sick. By means of ὃς καὶ ὅς the anonymous perjurers are taken into account separately (“such and such” equals “this or that”). [195] The pragmatic implication of this use of καί is that the two items are treated as equivalent alternatives one of the other. [196]
§118. The enrichment of καί as “or” consists in adding an alternative. The force of this addition may reside in correcting, by means of the second conjunct, an aspect of the first. Let me flag this specific usage in other genres than historiography. Ramsay (1898) argues that some καί mean “or,” and draws particular attention to this passage from Aristophanes’ Wasps 433. He hypothesizes that Loathecleon summons two slaves instead of three.
(t63)
ὦ Μιδα καὶ Φρὺξ βοήθει δεῦρο καὶ Μασυντία
Aristophanes Wasps 433
Midas, Phryx, come here and help! Masyntias too! (tr. Sommerstein).
Ramsay believes that the first καί links two alternative names and means “alias,” “or” (cf. Latin sive); thus, the imperative verb in second person singular refers to “Midas or the Phrygian,” to which a second slave, Masyntias, is added (the second καί meaning “and”). This reading harmonizes with the general idea of enrichments of καί I have discussed so far. Sometimes the link established by καί implies (as a pragmatic enrichment) a reformulation/amelioration of the first conjunct through the second. A corresponding paraphrase would be “and, to say it differently/better.”
§119. In the following passage from Plato, καί is directly translated “or”:
(t64)
… τοῦτο λέγειν, ὅτι ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη σοφία ὀλίγου τινὸς ἀξία ἐστὶν καὶ οὐδενός.
Plato Apology 23a
… [the god] means this: “Human wisdom is of little or no value.” (tr. Fowler)
In ὀλίγου τινὸς … καὶ οὐδενός, καί introduces an alternative expression: Socrates adjusts his statement so that he corrects the preceding formulation. In this passage Socrates’ communicative intention to adjust his formulation may lead to a scalar reading: “or” may be read as “or even”/”even,” with ὀλίγου and οὐδενός marking the progression on the scale. [197] The point is that the scalar component provided by “even” does not cancel or contradict the intention to reformulate or ameliorate a thought.
§120. The following example from Thucydides illustrates the possible co-existence of “or” and “even” particularly well.
(t65)
ὡς δὲ ἐχθροὶ καὶ ἔχθιστοι, πάντες ἴστε, οἵ γε ἐπὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἦλθον δουλωσόμενοι, …
Thucydides 7.68.2
It will be clear to all of you that the Athenians are not only enemies but the worst of the enemies. They came against our country to enslave it. (tr. Hammond)
Gylippus is talking to the Syracusan troops. In spite of the syntactic and even morphological symmetry between ἐχθροὶ and ἔχθιστοι (phrasal scope), καί invites us to enrich the link being established. The possible translation “and even,” indicating a scalar meaning, can be associated with an adjustment analogous to the one in Plato’s passage, that is, “or, better to say.” Hammond’s “not only … but” evokes scalarity in combination with an idea of correction. If we take καί to mean “better to say,” we recognize both the scalar component in the argument, and the function of καί aiming at more precision: “That they are enemies, or, better to say, the worst of the enemies, you all know that.”
§121. The last examples of this subsection show the connection between the implication “or” and the ideas of better approximation and closer determination. In fact, they introduce us to the next (and final) subsection, which is about καί suggesting a sense of climax.

2.4.8 καί and the idea of climax

§122. Denniston (1950:293) writes about καί: “… when the addition is surprising, or difficult of acceptance, and when a sense of climax is present, ‘also’ becomes ‘even’.” The present subsection expands on the idea of climax, by combining the roles of καί as “also” and “even,” and two notions applied to καί in earlier particle literature, that is, superaddendi vis and “Steigerung.”
§123. According to the canonical account of καί, whenever καί does not link two conjuncts but is attached to just one conjunct, it means “also” or “even.” καί can unquestionably function as a focus particle, [198] and as a scalar particle. [199] In the past philologists used the term “Steigerung” (“intensification,” “climax”) to unify the meanings of “also” and “even,” possibly embracing an upward as well as a downward progression (“even more” as well as “merely”). [200] A Herodotean passage illustrates quite clearly how the sense of “Steigerung” pertains to καί stressing an addition:
(t66)
Ἔστι δὲ ἄλλη πόλις ἀπέχουσα ὀκτὼ ἡμερέων ὁδὸν ἀπὸ Βαβυλῶνος·Ἲς οὔνομα αὐτῇ. Ἔνθα ἐστὶ ποταμὸς οὐ μέγας· Ἲς καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ τὸ οὔνομα·
Herodotus 1.179.4
There is another city, called Is, eight days’ journey from Babylon, where there is a little river, also named Is … (tr. Godley)
καί effects a micro-climax by doing more than establishing a link between the city and the river; it “superadds” that the river has the same name. The progress in the Greek takes four steps: “there is a city;” “its name is Is;” “nearby there is a river;” “the river’s name is also Is” (Ἲς καὶ τῷ ποταμῷ). [201]
§124. At an earlier point (2.4.3-2.4.4) I explored the role of καί at narrative peaks, and at the beginning of moves that expand portions of accounts. Both contexts represent climaxes on a larger scale, that is, on the multi-act level of discourse. [202] Here I focus on the idea of intensification/climax by considering a smaller range of the effect of καί, which is the phrasal scope. I propose to extend the notion of climax from the adverbial level to the conjunctive level of καί. Such an extension allows us to recognize that καί can detail, specify, and pin down on a phrasal level.
§125. I first recall that the construction ἄλλως τε καί, which literally means “both otherwise and,” is understood as “and especially.” [203] The function of this καί combination is to gain in precision, and in this respect is in line with some of the discourse functions I discussed earlier in relation to καί and καί combinations with multi-act scope. We may find slight variations in word order and in form (for example, different forms of ἄλλος may appear; τε, if present at all, may have a different position), but the function is the same. Perhaps the most famous ἄλλος form followed by καί in Herodotus is the one that occurs at the end of the proem:
(t67)
τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι’ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.
Herodotus, proem
and especially (…) why the two peoples fought with each other. (tr. Sélincourt and Marincola)
The historian announces the intention not to leave the great and marvelous deeds of the Greeks and of the Persians without κλέος, and especially (τά τε ἄλλα καί) for which reason (αἰτίην) they warred. The “zooming in” effect of καί suits well not only the central subject of the work, but also the start of the historiographical narrative proper: the immediately following clause is about the Persians considering the Phoenicians responsible (αἰτίους).
§126. Here is a variant of the construction:
(t68)
Οἰκέουσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων ἄποικοι Κνίδιοι, …
Herodotus 1.174.2
Among those who inhabit it [Caria] are certain Cnidians, colonists from Lacedaemon. (tr. Godley)
The detailing effect is clear: various people inhabit Caria, but Herodotus wants to focus in particular on the Cnidians. [204]
§127. One more construction is regarded in literature as showing an imbalance in the conjuncts: the pattern includes any form of πολύς + καί + a qualifying adjective. Once again, an example from Herodotus:
(t69)
Ὡς δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν Τέλλον προετρέψατο ὁ Σόλων τὸν Κροῖσον εἴπας πολλά τε καὶ ὄλβια, …
Herodotus 1.31.1
When Solon had provoked him [Croesus] by saying that the affairs of Tellus were so fortunate, … (tr. Godley)
What irritates Croesus the most, according to Herodotus’ lexical choice and word order, is the detail about the blessings Tellus could enjoy. Interestingly enough, in his monograph on particles, Bäumlein (1861:146) quotes this wording to explain that in such constructions, the addition expresses “nähere Bestimmung” (“closer determination”) rather than a coordinating relationship. [205]
§128. Let us now turn to less discussed instances of καί triggering intensification or climax at the phrasal level.
(t70)
τὰ ἔτι καὶ ἀμφότερα ἐς ἐμὲ ἦν κείμενα ἐν Θήβῃσι, καὶ Θηβέων ἐν τῷ νηῷ τοῦ Ἰσμηνίου Ἀπόλλωνος.
Herodotus 1.52.1
Both of these [the shield and the spear that Croesus dedicated to Amphiaraus] were until my time at Thebes, in the Theban temple of Ismenian Apollo. [206] (tr. Godley)
The second καί introduces a discourse act conveying specification: the Theban temple, to be precise. [207] The occurrence of names is significant. Names represent ideal second conjuncts after καί, not because they pertain to shared knowledge (as with τε), but because names often need specifying and pinning down. Aristophanes seems to play with this type of asymmetrical καί in association with names, in order to exploit the humorous implications:
(t71)
[Mα.] … ἡ δέ γ’ Εὔβοι’, ὡς ὁρᾷς,
ἡδὶ παρατέταται μακρὰ πόρρω πάνυ.
[Στ.] οἶδ’· ὑπὸ γὰρ ἡμῶν παρετάθη καὶ Περικλέους.
Aristophanes Clouds 211-213
[Dis.] … And Euboea here, as you see, is stretched out a long way by the side of it to a great distance.
[Strep.] 
I know that; for it was stretched by us and Pericles. (tr. Hickie)
Sommerstein (1991:171) translates παρετάθη as “render helpless, knock out,” and recalls that the Euboean revolt of 446 had been suppressed by Pericles. While “us” is still ambiguous, καὶ Περικλέους makes the joke by clarifying retrospectively the pun in παρετάθη. καί is the hinge for the discourse act of joking.
§129. The idea of “Steigerung” or climax enables us to better understand instances of καί with narrow scope that fit neither of the canonical connective or adverbial meanings. Here is a case in point:
(t72)
τὰ στρατόπεδα ποιεῖ μὲν καὶ ἅπαντα τοῦτο·
Thucydides 5.71.1
All armies do thus. (tr. Hobbes)
This statement opens the rationale for Agis’ tactically crucial decision in the battle of Mantinea, and τοῦτο has a proleptic function. Apart from the unusual clause position of μέν—which suggests that τὰ στρατόπεδα could have represented a separate intonation unit [208] —the role of καί is not classifiable within the canonical dichotomy. I propose to read καί as possessing an intensifying function as it spotlights ἅπαντα by way of specification as well as by way of indicating its remarkableness (“absolutely all of them”); in a word, it triggers a little climax.
§130. The affirmative meaning attached to καί in answers, especially in combination with adverbs such as μάλα, κάρτα or ὀρθῶς [209] can be interpreted, along the same lines, as springing from καί’s ability to intensify an expression, and to give it a climactic sense.
(t73)
Ἀστυάγης εἴρετό μιν εἰ ἡσθείη τι τῇ θοίνῃ. Φαμένου δὲ Ἁρπάγου καὶ κάρτα ἡσθῆναι παρέφερον τοῖσι προσέκειτο τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ παιδὸς …
Herodotus 1.119.5
Astyages asked him, “Did you like your meal, Harpagus?” “Exceedingly,” Harpagus answered. Then those whose job it was brought him the head of his son … (tr. Godley)
One of the most horrifying moments in the episode of Harpagus and Astyages coincides with the tragic irony of Harpagus’ answer—reported by Herodotus in the form of an indirect answer: “yes, absolutely” (καὶ κάρτα). [210]
§131. Finally, it is common for translators to take καί with phrasal scope as “also” when no further addition is indicated, as here:
(t74)
Λέγουσι δὲ καὶ τόδε Ἀράβιοι, ὡς …
Herodotus 3.108.1
The Arabians also say that … (tr. Godley)
“The Arabians also say” implies that the Arabians have just been reported as saying something. But this is not the case. In the preceding chapter (107), where the topic “Arabia” is introduced, the Arabians neither speak in direct or indirect speech. An alternative meaning for καί is therefore wanted. If we read this καί as a marker of “Steigerung” in the sense of better approximation, we obtain an improved translation: “The Arabians say exactly/just this:,” and their reported opinion follows. [211]
§132. The idea of “Steigerung,” finally, can also be conveyed by intensifying the frequency of καί. This is a construction that Thucydides in particular favors. In these cases, the increase in καί produces what I call an “accumulation effect.” [212]

2.4.9 Ιnterim conclusion

§133. Let me now sum up by speaking in practical terms. Any continuous reading of the two Histories would prompt us to ask, what should we do when we come across καί (which in Thucydides appears on average once every fifteen words)? The first cognitive operation we instinctively activate is to find out whether there are two conjuncts or one, in other words, to find out what καί is linking. If there is only one conjunct, which is confined to the phrasal scope, besides “also” and “even” we may include in the range of meanings “in particular” or “exactly/just.” If there are two conjuncts, we must establish the boundaries (the scope, in fact) of the second conjunct, and then of the first. [213] We are aided in establishing the boundaries of conjunct 1 if a τε is present to mark it. [214]
§134. The next step may consist in a deeper processing of the semantic and pragmatic information provided especially by conjunct 2, to identify the possible implications of καί. An implication that readers hardly realize, for example, regards καί as “and then” in narrative progression. We may say that this type of enrichment is typical of the historiographical genre in general. [215] However familiar, or expected in virtue of the genre, this is an implication that we attach to καί.
§135. We may also sense other types of implied meanings, and we may want to ascertain which enrichment καί conveys. One way to test this is to look for semantic or pragmatic asymmetrical signs, as for example, a change in tense, or the presence of other particles nearby. In particular, if καί—regardless of what punctuation mark precedes it, [216] --occurs in a “καί | x particle” pattern, we better understand its discourse function after detecting what complements the “x particle” clause. This complement may be another “x particle” clause that follows the first, either immediately or after other intervening clauses. Another asymmetrical sign is a pragmatic change in the source of the utterance (for example, καί μοι δοκεῖ).
§136. The latter asymmetrical feature relates to the discourse discontinuities I mention in §30. If καί co-occurs with linguistic elements that shift our attention to some new unit of the discourse, that καί introduces a transition. Thus, beyond monitoring occurrences of καί, we should always be monitoring the text for multi-act moves. Is any transition taking place? At which point in an episode does καί appear? Does καί occur within isolated word clusters?
§137. Finally, if καί follows a subordinating conjunction or is the first word of a main clause after a subclause (apodotic καί), we face discourse acts that are of equal weight, possibly expanding on preceding material or highlighting the ongoing piece of narration.

2.5 Conclusions

§138. This analysis of δέ, τε, and καί in Herodotus and Thucydides challenges two major dichotomous formulations in the scholarship, namely that particles work either as conjunctions or adverbs, and that particles either modify content or do not. [217]
§139. From examining δέ, τε, and καί in historiographical passages, I have found that the syntactic role of coordination can be associated with discourse meanings that are only implied. By “implied” I mean that the discourse meanings are not linguistically encoded but inferable from the co-text and context. Previous literature on δέ, τε, and καί in fact captures some implied meanings by applying adjectives such as “inceptive δέ” or “conclusive τε.” [218] We can compare such implied meanings to sentential adverbs, which in English are defined as adverbs that do not contribute content but communicate attitudes towards content. [219] It is the association between the syntactic role of coordination and implied discourse meanings that suggests to me that dichotomies are insufficient for explaining the functioning of these particles.
§140. In line with contemporary studies on lexical items that in some modern languages are used as conjunctions but also as discourse markers, we propose to view each of the three particles as existing on a continuum. The continuum embraces several options exploited in historiography (and in other genres), ranging from the simplest and-coordination in content (e.g. τὰ ἐν Θεσσαλίῃ καὶ τὰ ἐν Ἀχαιίῃ, Ηerodotus 7.198.1) to discourse effects involving entire narrative sections (e.g. καὶ τὸ θέρος ἐτελεύτα, (t57) and (t58)). Those usages that barely correspond to “and” (e.g. δέ close to asyndeton, and “epic” τε) are integral to the picture. They show that in ancient Greek the same lexical items fulfill multiple functions in a variety of syntactic and semantic configurations. I have showed this multifunctionality on a methodological level. Throughout the chapter I have intentionally avoided comprehensive statistics about functions, but opted to analyze δέ across different syntactic constructions, and τε within its wide spectrum of cognitive and pragmatic implications.
§141. One of the goals in this chapter is to bridge a major theoretical gap by looking at the functioning of these particles on the smaller scale together with their functioning at a larger one—to consider, so to speak, how the micro-horizon of intra-sentence or intra-clause levels complements the macro-horizon. Quite often the particles in question serve discourse functions involving multi-clause and multi-sentence units. Furthermore, short phrases may anticipate topic frames that extend over several subsequent clauses. Methodologically I have pursued this goal by organizing the section on καί around pragmatic forces of the particle that are comparable across different scopes, from moves to acts.
§142. Overall the analysis has benefits for literary criticism. Attention is oriented to the pragmatic effectiveness of using certain particles at certain points of the discourse, which syntactic and semantic configurations may suggest but not entirely explain. Instances labeled superfluous or unclassifiable become à propos; they do make sense. We may find a reason behind such divergent translations as “for example,” “just,” “or,” as well as behind untranslated καί. Further attention is devoted to what the brain finds convenient in producing and processing discourse successfully. It becomes apparent how δέ, τε and καί, like many other particles, are critical devices in facilitating these processes, for they convey what language is doing (metalinguistic meanings), and how narration proceeds (metanarrative meanings). This is why the forces of particles are seen to fit discourse acts and moves behind their phrasal, clausal, and sentential scope.
§143. Interim conclusions at the end of each section (IV.2.2.7; 2.3.8; 2.4.9) summarize specific findings on each of the three lexical items. Here I add a general note. On the one hand, the findings retrieve and substantiate input already provided in the literature; for example καί’s potential to mean “and in particular,” or the frequent occurrence in Herodotus and Thucydides of “sentential” τε. On the other hand, I posit entirely new readings. For instance, the recurrent pattern “καί/x δέ/x τε | x (other) particle” indicates a special discourse organization: the initial phrase is isolated from the rest and at the same time it projects its force over a number of upcoming clauses. [220] Another instance is τε’s ability to evoke the sense of shared knowledge through its association of personal and place names. [221]
§144. On the methodological level, I find that combinations involving δέ, τε, καί, and other particles contribute to discourse articulation in ways as meaningful as the single items constituting them. This finding confirms that individual particles are semantically unstable and work together only with their co-text. A further methodological finding is that our understanding of the uses of these particles greatly profits from detaching ourselves from punctuation marks. Our inferences about the functions of δέ, τε, and καί should not depend on commas and full stops; rather, commas and full stops reflect, retrospectively, what δέ, τε, and καί among other words originally effected. It is more productive to compare uses of δέ, τε, and καί to intonation patterns in modern languages. [222]
§145. Throughout this chapter I have set forth instances from other genres to indicate something of fundamental importance. The usages analyzed in the two Histories are common to several genres; at the same time Herodotus and Thucydides exploit basic functions to pursue communicative goals that are central to historiography, by adapting them quantitatively and qualitatively. Examples are the Herodotean preference for καὶ δή καί announcing the next macrotopic, and the Thucydidean preference for τε introducing separate statements.
§146. All in all, the functioning of and-coordination in the two masterpieces proves how fortunate we are: ancient Greek δέ, τε, and καί with their multifunctionality reveal a precision and a richness in language use that not only uncovers but also disentangles the complexity of “and.”
δέ, τε, and καί combinations in our corpus
  Il. Od. P Ae S E Ar H T
τε καί 3 2 6 8 7 1 7 8 3
  43 13 5 1 3 03 9 66 43
καί τε     - - - - - - -
(τ’) 17 6 - - - - - - -
δέ τε 1   - - - 2 - - -
(τ’) 05 41 - - -   - - -
τε δέ -- -- - - - - - - -
(δ’) -- -- - - - - - - -
δὲ καί     4 8 1 7 2 4 3
  86 61 2 0 1 1 7 11 88
καὶ δέ     - - - - - - -
(δ’) 16 14 - - - - - - -

Footnotes

[ back ] 1. This chapter will not delve into these particles’ negative counterparts. One of the reasons is that a careful analysis of οὐδέ, for example, would probably occupy a separate chapter, as it would have to consider the distinction between οὐδέ as the negation of δέ, and οὐδέ as the negation of καί. Another reason is statistical: the frequency of negative coordination overall is much lower than the frequency of positive coordination (see, for example, Basset 1989); so, in view of the inevitably selective character of our monograph, we prefer to focus on numerically higher linguistic evidence. Finally, it makes sense to suppose that discourse-oriented suggestions about the pragmatic complexity of δέ, τε, and καί can shed light on the usages concerning both the “declarative” οὐ and the “modal” μή counterparts. For example, the difficulty of determining when negation covers whole sentences rather than single constituents is parallel to the difficulty of determining when καί and τε link or focus on clauses rather than on single constituents. On different markers of negation in Homeric Greek, see now Willmott 2011.
[ back ] 2. See the corresponding graphs in I.5.
[ back ] 3. For an overview of coordination strategies in different languages, see Mithun 1988 and Raible 2001. About syndetic coordination in old IE languages, which is anything but uniform, see in particular Viti 2008.
[ back ] 4. Not only δέ but also τε and καί can be used to convey contrast. See below §72 and §115.
[ back ] 5. In logic, “scope” is the part of an expression that is governed by a given operator, such as a quantifier, a coordinator, or a negation. Scope ambiguities in syntax and in semantics are a long-standing subject matter; for an overview of earliest thoughts about it, see Partee and Hendriks 1997:37-61.
[ back ] 6. See Ι.1 §§8; 10-11 on propositional and non-propositional meanings.
[ back ] 7. The clause deliberately evokes κτῆμά τε ἐς αἰεί (…), Thucydides 1.22.4, which will be analyzed in §78.
[ back ] 8. See below §27, and IV.5 §35. In III.5 §§38-41 the whole texts of δέ acts following μέν acts are said to express semantic contrast—not the particle δέ per se.
[ back ] 9. Crespo 2009 illustrates the general claim.
[ back ] 10. See I.1.3 on why we keep the term “particle.” Laury and Seppänen 2008 and Fielder 2008 propose the notion of a continuum between conjunction and particle as far as Finnish and Bulgarian are concerned.
[ back ] 11. See I.3. The same attempt underlies the preference for “discourse markers” over “particles” in Bonifazi 2008, 2009, and 2012.
[ back ] 12. See I.1 §§1 and 9; I.2 §§14-16.
[ back ] 13. See, for example, Mann and Thompson 1988.
[ back ] 14. An instance of that occurs below (see (t16)). Cooper (2002:2705) notes: “Modern grammarians traditionally offer ‘normalizations’ of Greek paratactic expressions to hypotactic forms. ... the results are no fun to read.”
[ back ] 15. On the substantial differences between speaking and writing, see Chafe 1985; see also Biber 1988, 1995, and 2006.
[ back ] 16. According to the TLG online Thucydides’ Histories include 10,231 καί, against 7,623 in Herodotus’ Histories (6.7% against 4% of total words).
[ back ] 17. See Sköries 1999:52-60 and 142, recalling Lang 1977, and Sköries 1998:55. The preference for linking-and rather than adding-and also comes from Sköries 1999, who consistently mentions “‘and’-links” (“Undverbindungen”).
[ back ] 18. And conjuncts represent a “a joint-relevant unit ” (Pander Maat 2001:202).
[ back ] 19. Early contributions on this include Lakoff 1971, then Grice 1975, Schmerling 1975, Posner 1980. In an article on the origins of and and but in English, Traugott (1986:147) confirms what previous scholars had claimed, that is, that “the basic meaning of ‘and’ is rich and asymmetric.”
[ back ] 20. While making sense of a. we read “and” as “and then” marking a temporal relation (“John took off his shoes and then jumped in the pool”); in b. we infer “and therefore” marking a causal relation (“It’s my life and therefore I do what I want”); in c. “and by contrast,” “but” marking a contrastive relation (“They should have told you, but they didn’t”); in d. we infer a conditional relation (“If you give me your ice cream I’ll give you mine”); in e. we infer “and in consequence” marking a consecutive relation (“He left her and in consequence she took to the bottle”); finally, f. leads us to infer an imbalance between the quality of anonymous paperbacks and Penguin paperbacks; the slogan plays with similarity and diversity by assuming the former and actually conveying the latter.
[ back ] 21. A major debate among linguists concerns whether enrichment is part of the conceptual content of and per se, or if it is a matter of inference on the receiver’s part; in the former case it is a semantic, in the latter a pragmatic, component of the meaning. For a recent semantic account of asymmetrical and see Bjorkman 2010. Pragmatic accounts of enrichments of and are offered in Txurruka 2003; Blakemore and Carston 2005; Zeevat and Jasinskaja 2007, and Ariel 2012. Ariel divides the pragmatic interpretations further. In a “relational” strategy, people combine the conjuncts; in an “independent” strategy the conjuncts contribute to a discourse point separately. An example of and that requires the conjuncts to be considered separately is “A woman told her friend, ‘For eighteen years my husband and I were the happiest people in the world. Then we met’” (Ariel 2012:1693). From “then we met” we infer that in the previous clause the speaker does not consider the joint unit “my husband and I” (as a couple) but two independent people, “my husband” + “I.” καί in my view always fits a “relational” strategy, except when the meaning is “or”; in those cases the conjuncts are presented as separate alternatives (see §118 with n196).
[ back ] 22. Denniston 1950:162. In this introduction to δέ I am focusing particularly on Denniston not because he is the main source of insights on δέ—many other works preceding Denniston are equally helpful (if not more)--, but because his classification of the roles of δέ is representative of a certain approach. This approach defines the particle’s functions syntactically, and exhibits the heuristic habit of applying adjectives to describe these functions.
[ back ] 23. Denniston 1950:169.
[ back ] 24. Denniston 1950:169-177.
[ back ] 25. Denniston 1950:177-185.
[ back ] 26. On Bakker’s account of δέ, and on δέ in Homer, see II.2.2.1 and II.5.3.1.
[ back ] 27. Acts and moves in this monograph are particularly discussed in II.2, II.3, IV.3, and IV.5.
[ back ] 28. In the count I included instances of οὐδέ as well. The percentage is very similar to the overall frequency of the particle in the two authors without negative counterparts (4.24% in Herodotus and 2.94% in Thucydides). One thousand words cover the proem to 1.8.2 in Herodotus, and 1.1 to 1.7 (almost entirely) in Thucydides.
[ back ] 29. Bäumlein (1861:89) captures this idea by saying that the earliest role of δέ is to represent the concept of “further,” “new” as “different from the preceding” (“das Weitere und Neue eben als ein vom Vorhergehenden Verschiedenes (…) sich darstellt.”). For the pragmatic roles of δέ in drama, see especially III 2.2.1, and III.4 §§34-35, §§37-38, §46, §65.
[ back ] 30. This type of δέ is mentioned for example, by Denniston (1950:163), and Cooper (2002:2923). A further instance in the Herodotean thousand-word sample is 1.7.2 Ἦν Κανδαύλης, τὸν οἱ Ἕλληνες Μυρσίλον ὀνομάζουσι, τύραννος Σαρδίων, ἀπόγονος δὲ Ἀλκαίου τοῦ Ἡρακλέος “Candaules, whom the Greeks call Myrsilus, was the ruler of Sardis; he was descended from Alcaeus, son of Heracles” (tr. Godley). See also Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1275: ὦ σπέρματ’ ἀνδρὸς τοῦδ’, ἐμαὶ δ’ὁμαίμονες [Polynices to Antigone and Ismene] “Children of this man, and sisters of mine… [do you try to move my father’s lips?]” (tr. Lloyd-Jones 1994).
[ back ] 31. Unframed discourse is defined in II.4.2.
[ back ] 32. Exploited by both historians. In modern editions the paratactic status is signaled by a full stop before ὥστε—even though punctuation marks are problematic (on which see IV.3). The TLG online records six instances of that in Herodotus (e.g. 1.8.1; 5.42.2; 9.122.4), and 38 in Thucydides (e.g. 1.18.3; 3.13.4; 8.68.4). In this passage several co-textual elements indicate that ὥστε δέ start a new thought: δέ, which is a minimal sign of discourse discontinuity; the resuming role of ταῦτα, which is a typical Herodotean feature at the beginning of new narrative steps; and the participle νομίζων, which usually precedes information about motivated action.
[ back ] 33. On ἦν γάρ moves in Herodotus, see IV.3 §108. In Herodotus 1.8.1 (t6) the previous δέ (ἐρασθεὶς δέ) signposts a separate act as well: ἐρασθεὶς δὲ ἐνόμιζέ οἱ εἶναι γυναῖκα πολλὸν πασέων καλλίστην in fact starts the piecemeal development of the macro-theme announced by the first utterance of the chapter, Οὗτος δὴ ὦν ὁ Κανδαύλης ἠράσθη τῆς ἑωυτοῦ γυναικός. The initial utterance shows several Herodotean characteristics of episode-starts: οὗτος, which projects a long discourse unit (on which see IV.3 §§120-123); the combination δὴ ὦν, which marks major narrative boundaries (see IV.4 §§86 and 89); the temporally unbound aorist ἠράσθη.
[ back ] 34. On the metalinguistic value of discourse markers, see Maschler 2009:1-2. See also I.1 §15.
[ back ] 35. Within our sample, another clear instance is Χρόνου δὲ οὐ πολλοῦ διελθόντος, χρῆν γὰρ… (Herodotus 1.8.2) where δέ marks a genitive absolute as a discourse act.
[ back ] 36. For the definition, and on priming acts that reorient the attention of performer and audience in Homer and Pindar, see II.2.5. On priming acts in drama, see III.5 §§30-33. On priming acts in Herodotus and Thucydides, see below 2.2.5; IV.3.11.1, and IV.5 §§11; 32; 42; 59; 63; 78; 103. On projection, see II.2 §§51-54 and III.4 §§9-10; on τε as a projection marker, see below §§80-84, and §§89-90.
[ back ] 37. Vertical bars flag act boundaries; see II.2 §26, and IV.3 §46. Throughout the continuous texts of Herodotus and Thucydides analyzed in IV.5.2-5.5, act boundaries correspond to indentation (one act, one line).
[ back ] 38. On Kurzkola see II.2 §14.
[ back ] 39. Further examples of short constructions opening moves are discussed in IV.3.11.1. Besides δέ these constructions feature γάρ and καί.
[ back ] 40. Bakker 1997d:71.
[ back ] 41. The syntactic interpretation of appositions is controversial in linguistics; they are considered verbless adverbial clauses (e.g. Quirk et al., 1985:996; 1314); nominal predications (e.g. Doron 1994); reduced relative clauses (e.g. Del Gobbo 2003). The pragmatic notion of discourse act overcomes the different syntactic interpretations by simply associating these phrases with strategic steps.
The possible mismatch between discourse acts and clauses in English is discussed especially in Hannay and Kroon 2005:100; a case in point is “I was robbed. By a six-year old.” The full stop encodes an intonation break, which in turn signifies the split in two separate discourse acts, although the clause is one). For more discussion on this, see II.2.1.1. On such mismatches in Serbocroatian epics, see Bonifazi and Elmer 2012a.
[ back ] 42. It is tempting to recall here Clytemnestra’s words in Aeschylus Agamemnon 1404-1405, similarly charged with scornful pride: … οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀγαμέμνων, ἐμὸς / πόσις, νεκρὸς δέ, … “This is Agamemnon, my husband. Dead. (…)” (tr. AB).
[ back ] 43. See also Herodotus 2.5.1 Δῆλα γὰρ δὴ καὶ μὴ προακούσαντι, ἰδόντι δέ, ὅστις γε σύνεσιν ἔχει, ὅτι …, “For even if a man has not heard it before, he can readily see, if he has sense, that ….”
[ back ] 44. More on ἅμα μέν and ἅμα δέ sub-moves, see IV.5 §39.
[ back ] 45. On negatives as a criterion for establishing kôlon starts, see Scheppers 2011:76; 78; 243; see also II.2 §27 and IV.3 §46. ἀλλά would be an alternative to δέ (on ἀλλά expressing propositional contrast/replacement especially after negatives, see Drummen 2009). Ηowever, δέ suits the present piecemeal sequence of acts better than ἀλλά, as it presents the second and the third assessments as co-existing, rather than as contrasting alternatives to the first one. On the link between discourse and intonation boundaries, see below 2.2.3 on “inceptive δέ.”
[ back ] 46. Even though more research should be done on δέ in Xenophon, here I record an instance that, in spite of its “final” position, is in line with the examples I have commented on. Xenophon Anabasis 5.3.9-5.3.10 παρεῖχε δὲ ἡ θεὸς τοῖς σκηνοῦσιν ἄλφιτα, ἄρτους, οἶνον, τραγήματα, καὶ τῶν θυομένων ἀπὸ τῆς ἱερᾶς νομῆς λάχος, καὶ τῶν θηρευομένων δέ. καὶ γάρ θήραν …, “And the goddess would provide for the banqueters barley meal and loaves of bread, wine and sweetmeats, and a portion of the sacrificial victims from the sacred herd as well as of the victims taken in the chase” (tr. Brownson 1980). δέ serves to mark the information unit “and of the chased victims” as a separate discourse act (possibly corresponding to a separate intonation contour), albeit within the parallelism καὶ τῶν θυομένων - καὶ τῶν θηρευομένων. It also delimits the unit with respect to the following nexus καὶ γάρ. Α further tripartite division of information and intonation units in Herodotus occurs at least at 8.67.2: ἵζοντο (…) πρῶτος μὲν ὁ Σιδώνιος βασιλεύς, μετὰ δὲ ὁ Τύριος, ἐπὶ δὲ ὧλλοι. “They [Persian tyrants and leaders] sat (…), first the king of Sidon, then the king of Tyre, then the rest” (tr. Godley).
[ back ] 47. The fact that δέ may signal a separate discourse act is also shown by the occurrence of τί δέ in questions, particularly in classical Greek. Whether it stands alone or starts a more elaborate question, it signals the beginning of a new act. The role of τί δέ in Plato’s dialogues (along with the different punctuation accompanying it in Byzantine manuscripts) is extensively discussed in Rijksbaron 2007:244-257. Denniston (1950:175-176) discusses several subtypes of it, including τί δέ as a “formula of transition.” On the conversational role of τί δέ in drama, see III.4 §46.
[ back ] 48. The uniqueness of the adjective κακοξυνετωτέρου supports the idea that a separate and specific point is made by the utterance. Another instance of δέ marking exceptionally short discourse acts is Thucydides, at 7.3.1 … ἐθορυβήθησαν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον, παρετάξαντο δέ. ὁ δὲ θέμενος… “They [the Athenians] were consternated at first, then formed in battle order. He [Gylippus] …” (tr. adapted from Hammond 2009).
[ back ] 49. On parenthetical utterances and the problematic aspects of modern punctuation, see IV.3 §§ 59; 78; 80; 107; IV.5 §§16; 25; 68. Kerschensteiner (1964:38) acknowledges that sometimes the features we find in parentheses in Herodotus’ text occur elsewhere without parentheses. Readers tend to associate discontinuous parenthetical utterances with prose rather than poetry; however, poets do use parenthetical δέ acts as well. E.g. Pindar, Pythian 10.44-46 … θρασείᾳ δὲ πνέων καρδίᾳ / μόλεν Δανάας ποτὲ παῖς, ἁγεῖτο δ’ Ἀθάνα, / ἐς ἀνδρῶν μακάρων ὅμιλον … “Breathing boldness of spirit once the son of Danae [Perseus] went to that gathering of blessed men, and Athena led him there”--ἁγεῖτο δ’ Ἀθάνα (tr. Race).
[ back ] 50. On the Herodotean technique of repeating and resuming before moving on with narration, see in particular Müller 1980:51-63.
[ back ] 51. For tense change in unframed acts, see II.4 §14; for tense shift at move transitions, see IV.3 §94; §131; IV.5 §16.
[ back ] 52. As for drama, see III.4 §§34-35 for δέ at the start of questions unrelated to the immediately previous turn of speaking, and III.4 §38 for turn-initial δέ signaling lack of answer to question.
[ back ] 53. As in Homeric epic, for example, where δέ mostly starts individual narrative steps. On the possible connection between δέ and narrative sections within tragedy, see III.2 §27. The idea of marking narrative progression is probably the main reason why scholars talk about the connective side of δέ. See, for instance, Cooper 2002:2922: “δέ is the most frequent conjunction”; “the connective force is commonplace from Homer.”
[ back ] 54. See II.2 §36 “δέ in Homer is the simplest metalanguage.”
[ back ] 55. In (t4) and (t5), for instance, ἄν happens to occur as well, which is the linguistic marker of a modal nuance. Modality is fully compatible with the expression of stance and subjectivity.
[ back ] 56. See IV.3 §94 for the connection between a high degree of discontinuity and the beginning of moves in historiography.
[ back ] 57. 2.2.6 will discuss the different forces that contiguous δέ acts sometimes communicate.
[ back ] 58. This vocative act must correspond to some communicative strategic purpose beyond getting the attention of the interlocutor. The dialogic situation does not require any getting-attention device at that point, as Croesus and Solon are the only interlocutors, and the conversation started long before. Perhaps we can speculate about the ironic tone underlying the act.
[ back ] 59. See Denniston 1950:189 for the description of δέ after vocative expressions as “postponed.” In a note (1950:189n1) the author adds: “Pearson (on E.Hel. 1392) [Pearson 1903] is hardly right in saying that δέ here is ‘in its regular position with vocative outside the clause’.” In fact I believe Pearson to be right, in light of what δέ effects on the discourse level. Cooper (2002:2923) offers the following interesting observation about the position of δέ in general: “The position of δέ is regularly postpositive and it comes after the first word in its sentence or clause. But if the first thought of the sentence is a unified idea represented by several words, there is a tendency for all these words contributing to the unified idea to precede δέ.” Α further instance of a δέ act after a vocative in Herodotus is 8.68α (Δέσποτα, τὴν δὲ ἐοῦσαν γνώμην με δίκαιόν ἐστι ἀποδείκνυσθαι …, in Hude’s edition—Legrand writes τήν γε). At Lysias 7.4 the manuscripts have ἦν μὲν γὰρ τοῦτο Πεισάνδρου τὸ χωρίον, δημευθέντων τῶν ὄντων δὲ ἐκείνου Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Μεγαρεὺς … “This plot of ground belonged to Peisander; but when his property was confiscated, Apollodorus of Megara …” (tr. Lamb). Bekker emended the “postposition” of δέ by moving it after δημευθέντων, and therefore normalizing its position. Denniston (1950:188-189) comments: “Bekker’s δὲ τῶν is surely right.” Yet, if we consider the genitive absolute as a “unified idea” (to use Cooper’s terms), there is no need to emend the position of δέ. Grégoire 1930 shows that over time δέ’s position in phrases and clauses becomes free more and more often.
[ back ] 60. Denniston 1950:172. This type of δέ falls under the category “apparently superfluous δέ” (171), together with δέ in second answers to second questions, and in passionate exclamations.
[ back ] 61. In Verdenius 1947:274-275 they are: τοῦ δὲ λόγου τοῦδ’ ἐόντος…, Heraclitus fr. 1 (δέ reported only by Hippolytus and not by Aristotle and Sextus; perhaps, Verdenius adds, there was a title Περὶ φύσεως preceding it); ἀρχὴ δέ μοι τοῦ λόγου …, Ion of Chios fr. 1; ἁ φύσις δ’ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἁρμόχθη, Philolaus fr. 1; Σωκράτους δὲ ἀξιόν μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι μεμνῆσθαι, Xenophon Apologia 1; ἤκουσα δὲ ποτε αὐτοῦ … Xenophon Economics 1; περὶ δὲ τῆς Ἀθηναίων πολιτείαι …, Χenophon Constitution of the Athenians 1. In Verdenius 1955 he quotes ὧδε ἔχει περὶ αὐτέων· τὰ δὲ ἔθνεα ταῦτα …, Hippocrates Airs, Waters, Places 13 (Wilamowitz and Heiberg delete δέ); σοὶ δ’ἐγὼ ἐσθλὰ νοέων ἐρέω …, Hesiod Works and Days 286; τίς δὲ βίος …, Mimnermus fr. 1.1; ἡμεῖς δ’οἷά τε φύλλα …, Μimnermus fr. 2.1; ἡμετέρα δὲ πόλις …, Solon fr. 3.1; σοὶ δ’ ἐγὼ εὖ φρονέων ὑποθήσομαι, Τheognides 27; χρημάτων δ’ ἄελπτον οὐδέν ἐστιν, Archilochus fr. 74.1; Thucydides 5.23.1 (see main text); δοκεῖ δὲ μεγαλόψυχος εἶναι …, Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1123b2.
[ back ] 62. A similar instance in Herodotus concerns the re-start of an actual account after the historian explicitly announces his intention to retrieve it (Herodotus 1.140.3-141.1 ἄνειμι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν πρότερον λόγον. [141] Ἴωνες δὲ καὶ Αἰολέες, ὡς οἱ Λυδοὶ τάχιστα κατεστράφατο ὑπὸ Περσέων, ἔπεμπον ἀγγέλους ἐς Σάρδις παρὰ Κῦρον … “I return now to my former story. [141] As soon as the Lydians had been subjugated by the Persians, the Ionians and Aeolians sent messengers to Cyrus …” (tr. Godley).
[ back ] 63. Another philological problem dealing with δέ in a passage from Lysistrata is examined from a pragmatic perspective in III.4 §69.
[ back ] 64. Many other scholars hypothesize the same thing, independently from “inceptive” δέ; see, for example, Thiersch 1826:549; Leumann 1949:87; Bakker 1997d:79. II.2 §§32-33 and II.3 §57 explore the possible link between the two particles.
[ back ] 65. Hummel 1993:382 about Pindar; Klein 1992:49 and Viti 2008:42 about Homer.
[ back ] 66. See below 2.3.3; 2.3.4; 2.3.6. On the ambiguity of commas in modern punctuation of ancient Greek texts, see IV.3 §57.
[ back ] 67. The pronouns preceding δέ already effect the change; see II.5.3.1.
[ back ] 68. See above n41.
[ back ] 69. About the vis of particles, see I.1 §16.
[ back ] 70. Thucydides prefers καί in contiguous acts that express narrative progress. See below n215.
[ back ] 71. See II.2.5.2.1 for a cognitive reading of second-person nominative pronouns in Pindar.
[ back ] 72. On αὐτός establishing a center and a periphery, see Bonifazi 2012:137-149.
[ back ] 73. In her monograph on love as war in Sappho, Rissman (1983:10-11) comments about σύμμαχος: “[it] must be taken as a serious appeal for help, for an ally in the war of love. The poet does not consider her situation hopeless.”
[ back ] 74. Over the first two books of each work, the instances of δέ (including δ’) amount to 2,389 in Herodotus, versus 1,291 in Thucydides (1.26% vs. 0.84% respectively), which increases the probability of having more contiguous δέ acts in the former than in the latter.
[ back ] 75. As for idiomatic constructions involving τε, the number of occurrences is not significant: Herodotus employs ἄλλ- τε καί forms four times; οἶο- τε forms 51 times, and ὅσον τε 22 times; Thucydides ἄλλ- τε καί forms (mainly ἄλλως τε καί) 47 times; οἶο- τε forms 29 times, and ὅσον τε two times.
[ back ] 76. This continuum of functions is considered on the level of discourse functions, which is a synchronic level of analysis. It is not our purpose to chart the functions of τε diachronically, a task that would require a richer spectrum of texts and discussion of Indo-European comparanda. The only diachronic aspect that is taken into account is the adoption, by classical Greek genres, of features from earlier genres.
[ back ] 77. Very similar conclusions are drawn about the pragmatics of τε in II.4 §§29-33 concerning τε in Homeric similes; in II.4 §55-70 concerning cοnnective τε in Pindar; in III.2.2.3 concerning τε in tragedy and comedy.
[ back ] 78. The antiquity of “epic” τε is corroborated by Mycenaean Greek, which also had non-connective qe. Hajnal 2004 (10-11) sees in that use a sign of oral discourse--qe marks someone’s name as left-dislocated with respect to the predicate about it. I thank Brent Vine for drawing my attention to the problem of how to interpret non-connective qe in Mycenaean.
[ back ] 79. Lysias does not employ τε very often. Τhe TLG online records only 243 instances of τε (fragments included), of which 28 are οἶός τε forms.
[ back ] 80. Denniston and Ruijgh do mention this study, but do not acknowledge that it contributes anything more than a reference to the generalizing function of τε.
[ back ] 81. In Wentzel’s terms, “copulative” and “rein epischer” respectively.
[ back ] 82. See Bloch 1955:147, which proposes “bekanntlich” as the translation of “epic” τε (and mentions Wentzel 1847).
[ back ] 83. Wentzel 1847:1-2, 31.
[ back ] 84. Different characteristics of items may be mentioned in a series, and still maintain a sense of separateness. Wentzel (1847:3) calls it “Getrenntheit”: “Wir sagen … : die Winkel sind theils rechte, theils stumpfe, theils spitze, d.h. die einen sind rechte, die andern sind stumpfe u.s.w. Der Grieche setzt hier τε-τε-τε und hat ursprünglich so gedacht: die Winkel sind rechte da, stumpfe da, spitze da, und bezeichnet dadurch eben ihr Getrenntsein in ihrer äußeren Erscheinung,” “We say … : the corners are partly fitting, partly dull-edge, partly acute; that is to say, some of them are fitting, others are dull-edge, etc. The Greek puts here τε …τε … τε, and originally thought the following: the corners are fitting here, dull-edge here, acute here, and through this he shows their separatedness in their exterior appearance.”
[ back ] 85. Here is a compressed recapitulation of the main ideas on the development of the two syntactically diverse τε: Kühner and Gerth (1955: §81 take “epic” τε as deriving from coordinating τε (thus as a weak form of “also”); analogously, Gonda takes the complementarity expressed by τε as the primary function (from IE *-kwe, connected to Vedic ca, Latin -que), which is fully shown in its connective uses, while ὅς τε clauses convey a similar idea; they are “added mainly for the sake of completeness, for giving an addition, for expressing the idea of association” (1954:206-207); Ruijgh (1971:12; 15) also thinks a coordinating particle is where the adverbial “digressif-permanent” τε comes from. Conversely, Wackernagel (1920:118-119) and Chantraine (1953:340) derive τε from *kwi-, a IE marker of indefiniteness (see Latin quis- que and Greek οἱός τε), where the coordinating role comes from. Finally, Bloch (1955:152-153) holds that the two τε have different origins and different etymologies. In particular, “epic” τε may either come from a form of personal pronoun “you” (connected to Old Indic ) or from a demonstrative form τῆ (“sieh da”). Beekes (2010:1457) only mentions IE *-kwe, the appearance of τε in adverbs as well (ὅτε, πότε, etc.), and the general meaning “and.” Goldstein retrieves the main point of Collitz 1879, that is, Vedic ca, Greek τε, and Latin -que originally mean “how.” He hypothesizes an IE instrumental singular relative *k w eh 1 where ancient Greek relativizer τε comes from. Conjunction τε evolves from relativizer τε through a “loss of pragmatic enrichment” (Goldstein, paper given in Heidelberg on November 6th, 2013).
[ back ] 86. See above §11, as well as below §58; 2.3.2; §78 about τε; §§103-104; 2.4.6 about καί. We borrow “enrichment” from Carston’s analysis of and (2002:227).
[ back ] 87. See Ruijgh’s wording “digressif-permanent” (1971:1) for the use of how “epic” τε couples permanence of content with digression in narration. Digressing in narrative is commonly associated with providing backgrounding or with statements that are temporally unbound. “A digression, by its very name, is not bound by the constraints which limit the set of Relevant and Informative messages” (Giora 1990:300; capitals in the text).
[ back ] 88. Speaker, interlocutor, and narrator are certainly part of the community sharing this knowledge. A further level on which shared knowledge can be incorporated in the text concerns the audience; recipients of epic stories represent the larger community of individuals sharing an entire tradition of known facts and actions. II.4 discusses the cognitive function of particles that, in the epic genre, signpost the accessing of tradition as discourse memory. To further support the reading of (t24), I add a parallel that regards another resentful relative clause. Three times in the Iliad Agamemnon is defined by either Achilles or Patroclus as the one who “did no honor to the best of the Achaeans” (ὅ τ’ ἄριστον Ἀχαιῶν οὐδὲν ἔτισεν, Homer Iliad 1.412 and 16.274; at 1.244 Achilles directly addresses Agamemnon: ὅ τ’ ἄριστον Ἀχαιῶν οὐδὲν ἔτισας). Agamemnon’s refusal to recompense Achilles happens at a certain point in the story and in a certain context. Also, all three occurrences of this relative clause appear after the mention of the sorrow or madness Agamemnon is driven to as he did not honor Achilles: γνῷ δὲ καὶ Ἀτρεΐδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων / ἣν ἄτην ὅ τ’ ἄριστον Ἀχαιῶν οὐδὲν ἔτισεν (Homer Iliad 1.411-412; 16.273-274); σὺ δ’ ἔνδοθι θυμὸν ἀμύξεις / χωόμενος ὅ τ’ ἄριστον Ἀχαιῶν οὐδὲν ἔτισας (Homer Iliad 1.243-244). The piece of information provided by the relative clause is a crucial part of the point the speaker wants to make. Ruijgh (1971:814-815) takes these passages as evidence supporting the view that holds that ὅ τε should always be read ὅτε (temporal conjunction)—see 1971:810-823 section “La conjonction chimérique ὅ τε.” This would explain the temporal or clausal nuance of the purportedly relative clause, which would not fit the indication of permanent facts. LSJ offers a similar reading (s.v. ὅστε, ΙΙ “introducing the reason for making a statement or asking a question”). Our suggestion about τε marking shared knowledge encompasses relative clauses with temporal or causal nuances beyond the form ὅ.
[ back ] 89. A table summarizing the occurrences of combinations involving δέ, τε and καί in the works of our corpus is available at the end of this chapter.
[ back ] 90. Edwards (1991:182) notes the wordplay around the sounds ‘kt’ and quotes Iliad 11.410 and 22.253 as parallels. Ι believe that the artful assonance of καί τε κτανέοντα κατέκτα fits the idea of a saying. At Iliad 23.590 double τε οccur after two different coordinating conjunctions, possibly marking shared knowledge in a gnomic statement: κραιπνότερος μὲν γάρ τε νόος, λεπτὴ δέ τε μῆτις (“for [in a young man] thought is quicker, but guile is thin”). Further gnomic sentences in Homer contain γάρ τε, for example Odyssey 7.294 αἰεὶ γάρ τε νεώτεροι ἀφραδέουσιν (“for younger men always behave thoughtlessly”). In those cases the marking of common knowledge possibly deriving from τε nicely matches the insertion of story-world information or gnômai signaled by γάρ (on which see II.4 §21-22). Hesiodic poetry employs δέ τε in proverbial lines—the knowledge of which is quintessentially shared—in Works and Days 609, 818 and 824; the latter (ἄλλος δ’ ἀλλοίην αἰνεῖ, παῦροι δὲ τε ἴσασιν) does not include τ’ in Solmsen’s edition (Solmsen and Merkelbach 1970). III.2 §43 discusses an instance of τε in Euripides concerning swearing an oath.
[ back ] 91. In fact, the combination δέ τε must be particularly old. The metrical analyses of the Iliad proposed by Tichy 2015 (see the link https://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/pers/15752 to the online version of books 7 to 16) reveals that δέ τε occurs in older rather than newer lines, where older means that they show traces of pre-hexametrical choriambs. I thank Eva Tichy for sharing her thoughts about Homeric δέ τε and καί τε.
[ back ] 92. Tragic and comic choral songs show evidence of this presupposition as well. The relatively high frequency of τε contributes to their formal and ritual code. See III.2 §§44 and 47-48.
[ back ] 93. In line with this argument, I do not think that an and-coordination is needed in interpreting Herodotus 9.57.2 περὶ ποταμὸν Μολόεντα ἱδρυμένον Ἀργιόπιόν τε χῶρον καλεόμενον, τῇ καὶ Δήμητρος Ἐλευσινίης ἱρὸν ἧστα, which Godley translates, “by the stream Molois and the place called Argiopium, where there is a shrine of Eleusinian Demeter” (my emphasis). τε may just mark encyclopedic knowledge about the area where the river is located—“by the stream Molois in the Argiopium area.”
[ back ] 94. Both historians use τε γάρ (43 occurrences in Herodotus; 75 in Thucydides) mostly in a coordinating construction where γάρ has scope over the entire sentence, and the τε constituent is usually answered by a καί constituent. However, the coordinating function does not preclude an additional force related to encyclopedic knowledge, as in Herodotus 4.47.1 ἥ τε γὰρ γῆ ἐοῦσα πεδιὰς αὕτη ποιώδης τε καὶ εὔυδρός ἐστι, ποταμοί τε δι’ αὐτῆς ῥέουσι … “for their country is flat and grassy and well-watered, and rivers run through it (…). See above n90 for instances of τε γάρ in gnomic/proverbial contexts.
[ back ] 95. For appositions with τε (even if followed by καί), see Herodotus 3.70.1 Ὁ δὲ Ὀτάνης παραλαβὼν Ἀσπαθίνην καὶ Γωβρύην, Περσέων τε πρώτους ἐόντας καὶ ἑωυτῷ ἐπιτηδεοτάτους ἐς πίστιν … “Otanes then took aside two Persians of the highest rank whom he thought worthiest of trust, Aspathines and Gobryas (…).”
[ back ] 96. It is not infrequent to find in both Histories an article/weak demonstrative followed by τε resembling “epic” τε after relative pronouns. See for instance Herodotus 1.74.6 Ὅρκια δὲ ποιέεται ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνεα τά πέρ τε Ἕλληνες … “These nations make sworn compacts as do the Greeks.” As for Thucydides, such τε regularly are either answered by καί or they link the previous sentence through coordination, but the contents suggest an overlapping function where geographical or historiographical knowledge is shared: e.g. 2.15.4 τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς …; 2.17.2 τό τε Πελαργικὸν καλούμενον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, …; 1.104.2 καὶ ἀναπλεύσαντες ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἐς τὸν Νεῖλον τοῦ τε ποταμοῦ κρατοῦντες καὶ τῆς Μέμφιδος …; 1.2.2 ἥ τε νῦν Θεσσαλία καλουμένη καὶ Βοιωτία …; 1.12.2 ἥ τε γὰρ ἀναχώρησις τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐξ Ἰλίου χρονία γενομένη πολλὰ ἐνεόχμωσε, καὶ στάσεις ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐγίγνοντο.
[ back ] 97. See Mithun’s quote in §4. A significant analogy—albeit dealing with a different grammatical item, and with no explicit mention of pragmatic values—can be found in Hoffmann’s arguments about injunctive in Veda (Hoffmann 1967). The author opts for an enriched understanding of that mood by associating a general attitude of the speaker with its use. Besides the semantic and syntactic functions, in Veda the injunctive mood implies the intention to “mention/reference” (“erwähnen”) as opposed to that of “report/give an account” (“berichten”; see Hoffmann 1967:163; 266-267). What makes this idea even closer to our proposal about τε is that Hoffmann, at the very end of the monograph (1967: 279) pins down the main function of the injunctive mood (“to mention”) by calling it “commemorative”: “Die Hauptfunktion des Injunktivs ist also die Erwähnung: seine sachgemäße Benennung wäre demnach Memorativ.” I thank David Goldstein for drawing my attention to this parallel. 
[ back ] 98. Later in chapter 13 of book 1 a further τε potentially serves two functions: the Corinthians are said to always have been involved with commerce, and to be capable of wealth. The information about wealth is marked by τε, and it is followed by a note about the poets who know that, as they call the area “rich”: οἱ Κορίνθιοι ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἰσθμοῦ αἰεὶ δή ποτε ἐμπόριον εἶχον, … χρήμασί τε δυνατοὶ ἦσαν, ὡς καὶ τοῖς παλαιοῖς ποιηταῖς δεδήλωται· ἀφνειὸν γὰρ ἐπωνόμασαν τὸ χωρίον “Corinth, being seated on an isthmus, was naturally from the first a centre of commerce … . Her wealth too was a source of power, as the ancient poets testify, who speak of ‘Corinth the rich’” (Thucydides 1.13.5; tr. Jowett).
[ back ] 99. These notions are also discussed in II.4 §§60-61 along with Wälchli’s definition.
[ back ] 100. Numbers and percentages appear in Tables 1 to 6 in Viti 2006.
[ back ] 101. Homer Ιliad 1.544; 4.68; 5.426; 8.49 and 132; 11.182; 15.12 and 47; 16.458; 20.56; 22.167; 24.103; Odyssey 1.28 and 338; 12.445; 18.137.
[ back ] 102. Separately, τε and noun phrases have their highest frequency in tragic and comic songs (see III.2 §46), which increases the chance that they occur together.
[ back ] 103. See Hall 1996:144. Broadhead 1960: 137-138 notes that there is a curious hýsteron próteron in space and time: geographically, from Greece comes the Edonian territory first and then mount Pangaeus, but here the order is inverted. On the messenger’s voice resembling that of an epic narrator, see Barrett 2002:xvi-xvii.
[ back ] 104. III.2 §44 comments on an Aristophanic passage where the repeated use of τε in association with names alludes to the epic genre, and has a parodic effect.
[ back ] 105. See Cooper 2002:3116, who sees an idiomatic use of adverbial τε when it is used “in anatomical or geographical descriptions”; in that case τε, according to Cooper, expresses “clear perception” rather than generalization. I remind here the reader of Wentzel’s remark that τε may indicate well-known phenomena (“allbekannte Erscheinungen”) regarding nature, human beings, gods, animals, or qualities and properties of objects and individuals; also, it can be used in describing lands and items (“Länder und Sache“). See above §52.
[ back ] 106. I could not find notes in the commentaries about τε in this and in other passages, understandably because its use is not grammatically problematic, and because attention in such cases falls on the names.
[ back ] 107. On Herodotus’ sources for the accont of the Lydian kings, see Pedley 1972:22-25 and Asheri 1988:266-274.
[ back ] 108. τε in Thucydides represents 1.70% of total words (one τε every 58 words on average), against 1.47% in Herodotus (one τε every 68 words). In our corpus the highest frequency of τε occurs in Pindar (2.11% of total words).
[ back ] 109. See, for example, 1.9.1 (Ἀγαμέμνων τε μοι δοκεῖ …); 1.9.2 (Πελοπά τε πρῶτον …); 1.13.6 (Φωκαῆς τε Μασσαλίαν οἰκίζοντες Καρχηδονίους ἐνίκων ναυμαχοῦντες).
[ back ] 110. Except for Hoogeveen 1769 and Gonda 1954, it is commonly assumed that τε in the combination τε καί (without intervening words) is superfluous.
[ back ] 111. Herodotus 1.17.1 ὑπὸ συρίγγων τε καὶ πηκτίδων and αὐλοῦ γυναικηίου τε καὶ ἀνδρηίου; 1.31.1 Κλέοβίν τε καὶ Βίτωνα (and 1.31.4 Κλεόβι τε καὶ Βίτωνι); 1.31.5 ὡς ἔθυσάν τε καὶ εὐωχήθησαν; 1.35.2 ἐπυνθάνετο ὁκόθεν τε καὶ τίς εἴη; 1.51.1 χρύσεόν τε καὶ ἀργύρεον; 1.59.6 καλῶς τε καὶ εὖ; 1.80.2 σιτοφόροι τε καὶ σκευοφόροι κάμηλοι; 1.88.3 φέρουσί τε καὶ ἄγουσι; 1.100.2 οἱ κατάσκοποί τε καὶ κατήκοοι; 1.121 πατέρα τε καὶ μητέρα; 1.128.2 νέους τε καὶ πρεσβύτας ἄνδρας; 1.129.1 κατέχαιρέ τε καὶ κατεκερτόμεε; 1.134.3 ἄρχον τε καὶ ἐπιτροπεῦον; 1.137.1 πλέω τε καὶ μέζω; 1.142.2 τὰ μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ψυχροῦ τε καὶ ὑγροῦ πιεζόμενα, τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ τε καὶ αὐχμώδεος; 1.165.3 πόθος τε καὶ οἶκτος; 1.186.2 σιδήρῳ τε καὶ μολύβδῳ; 1.201 πρὸς ἠῶ τε καὶ ἡλίου ἀνατολάς; 1.204.1 πρὸς ἠῶ τε καὶ ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα; 1.215.1 τοξόται τε καὶ αἰχμοφόροι; 2.4.2 βωμούς τε καὶ ἀγάλματα καὶ νηοὺς; 2.26.2 ὁ βορέης τε καὶ ὁ χειμὼν; 2.32.5 ὕδατί τε καὶ σιτίοισι εὖ ἐξηρτυμένους; 2.35.2 ἤθεά τε καὶ νόμους; 2.35.5 πάντων τε καὶ πασέων; 2.42.2 Ἴσιός τε καὶ Ὀσίριος; 2.53.1 πρώην τε καὶ χθὲς; 2.53.3 τὰ ἐς Ἡσίοδόν τε καὶ Ὅμηρον ἔχοντα; 2.78 πῖνέ τε καὶ τέρπεο; 2.82.1 μείς τε καὶ ἡμέρη ἑκάστη; 2.113.3 περὶ τὴν Ἑλένην τε καὶ τὴν ἐς Μενέλεων ἀδικίην; 2.149.1 πρὸς βορέην τε καὶ νότον; 3.1.1 ἀποσπάσας ἀπὸ γυναικός τε καὶ τέκνων; 3.14.3 βοῇ τε καὶ κλαυθμῷ; 3.48.3 χοροὺς παρθένων τε καὶ ἠιθέων and τρωκτὰ σησάμου τε καὶ μέλιτος; 3.100 ἕψουσί τε καὶ σιτέονται; 3.119 τὸν ἄνδρα τε καὶ τὰ τέκνα; 4.132 γῆν τε καὶ ὕδωρ, (=5.18 twice; 5.17; 5.73; 6.48; 6.49; 6.94; 7.32; 7.163); 4.139 ἔργα τε καὶ ἔπεα; 4.142 κακίστους τε καὶ ἀνανδροτάτους; 4.180 λίθοισί τε καὶ ξύλοισι; 4.186 κρεοφάγοι τε καὶ γαλακτοπόται; 4.191 θηριωδεστέρη τε καὶ δασυτέρη; 4.199 ἀμᾶσθαί τε καὶ τρυγᾶσθαι; 4.205 τοιαύτη τε καὶ τοσαύτη; 5.14 τὰ τέκνα τε καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας; 5.24 συνετός τε καὶ εὔνοος; 5.31 καλή τε καὶ ἀγαθὴ; 5.45 τέμενός τε καὶ νηὸν; 5.58 αἰγέῃσί τε καὶ οἰέῃσι; 5.61 ἱρόν τε καὶ ὄργια; 5.67 θυσίας τε καὶ ὁρτὰς; 5.75 μετεβάλλοντό τε καὶ ἀπαλλάσσοντο; 6.11 μαλακίῃ τε καὶ ἀταξίῃ; 6.19 ὁ νηός τε καὶ τὸ χρηστήριον; 6.38 ἀγῶνα ἱππικόν τε καὶ γυμνικὸν; 6.42 φέροιέν τε καὶ ἄγοιεν; 6.56 τὰ δέρματά τε καὶ τὰ νῶτα; 6.58 ἄνδρα τε καὶ γυναῖκα; 6.83 ἄρχοντές τε καὶ διέποντες; 6.109 Ἁρμόδιός τε καὶ Ἀριστογείτων (=6.23); 6.137 ὑπὸ ὕβριός τε καὶ ὀλιγωρίης; 7.8 τιμωρίην τε καὶ τίσιν; 7.49 γῆ τε καὶ θάλασσα; 7.104 ἄπολίν τε καὶ φυγάδα; 7.201 ἀναιδείῃ τε καὶ ἀβουλίῃ 8.60 τέκνα τε καὶ γυναῖκες; 8.71 οὔτε νυκτὸ οὔτε ἡμέρης; 8.70.2 δέος τε καὶ ἀρρωδίη; 8.98.1 ἵππος τε καὶ ἀνὴρ τεταγμένος and ἵπποι τε καὶ ἄνδρες; 8.99 βοῇ τε καὶ οἰμωγῇ; 8.99 ἐν θαλίῃσί τε καὶ εὐπαθείῃσι; 8.100.2 ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ ἵππων; 8.100.3 νῦν τε καὶ πρότερον; 8.101 ἐχάρη τε καὶ ἥσθη; 8.109.3 θεοί τε καὶ ἥρωες; 8.108.3 κατὰ πόλις τε καὶ κατὰ ἔθνεα; 8.109 ἀνόσιόν τε καὶ ἀτάσθαλον; 8.110.1 σοφός τε καὶ εὔβουλος; 8.111.3 Πενίην τε καὶ Ἀμηχανίην; 8.113.3 στρεπτοφόρους τε καὶ ψελιοφόρους; 8.140 ἄνευ τε δόλου καὶ ἀπάτης; 8.144 ὅμαιμόν τε καὶ ὁμόγλωσσον; 9.21 λιπαρίῃ τε καὶ ἀρετῇ; 9.27 παλαιά τε καὶ καινὰ; 9.59 βοῇ τε καὶ ὁμίλῳ; 9.70.2 ἀρετῇ τε καὶ λιπαρίῃ; 9.80.1 κρητῆράς τε χρυσέους καὶ φιάλας τε καὶ ἄλλα ἐκπώματα; 9.80.2 χρύσεοί τε καὶ ἀργύρεοι; 9.80.2 ψέλιά τε καὶ στρεπτοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἀκινάκας; 9.82.1 χρυσῷ τε καὶ ἀργύρῳ; 9.92 πίστιν τε καὶ ὅρκια ἐποιεῦντο; 9.102.1 αἰγιαλόν τε καὶ ἄπεδον; 9.116.2 τάφος τε καὶ τέμενος.
[ back ] 112. See Thucydides 1.30.4 ναυσί τε καὶ πεζῷ (=3.13.4); 1.49.1 τοξότας τε καὶ ἀκοντιστάς; 1.90.3 ἀναχώρησίν τε καὶ ἀφορμὴν; 1.126.10 σίτου τε καὶ ὕδατος ἀπορίᾳ; 1.139.4 λέγειν τε καὶ πράσσειν; 2.4.2 κραυγῇ τε καὶ ὀλολυγῇ χρωμένων λίθοις τε καὶ κεράμῳ; 2.6.3 νενικημένων τε καὶ ξυνειλημμένων; 2.27.1 αὐτούς τε καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας; 2.29.6 ἱππέων τε καὶ πελταστῶν; 2.35.3 βουλήσεώς τε καὶ δόξης; 2.75.3 ὕπνον τε καὶ σῖτον; 2.84.3 ἀντιφυλακῇ τε καὶ λοιδορίᾳ; 2.95.3 ναυσί τε καὶ στρατιᾷ; 2.97.3 χρυσοῦ τε καὶ ἀργύρου, and ὑφαντά τε καὶ λεῖα; 3.23.2 ἐτόξευόν τε καὶ ἠκόντιζον; 3.23.4 ἐτόξευόν τε καὶ ἐσηκόντιζον; 3.42.1 τάχος τε καὶ ὀργήν; 3.70.6 φίλους τε καὶ ἐχθροὺς; 3.97.3 διώξεις τε καὶ ὑπαγωγαί; 3.104.3 πυγμαχίῃ τε καὶ ὀρχηστυῖ καὶ ἀοιδῇ; 4.3.2 ξύλων τε καὶ λίθων; 4.8.6 ὑλώδης τε καὶ ἀτριβὴς; 4.12.3 τοῖς δὲ θαλασσίοις τε καὶ ταῖς ναυσὶ; 4.24.4 πεζῇ τε καὶ ναυσὶν; 4.34.1 λίθοις τε καὶ τοξεύμασι καὶ ἀκοντίοις; 4.69.2 τάφρον τε καὶ τείχη; 4.102.3 ἐς θάλασσάν τε καὶ τὴν ἤπειρον; 5.16.1 εὐτυχεῖν τε καὶ τιμᾶσθαι; 5.64.3 τὸ πρεσβύτερόν τε καὶ τὸ νεώτερον; 5.103.2 μαντικήν τε καὶ χρησμοὺς; 6.32.1 χρυσοῖς τε καὶ ἀργυροῖς; 6.46.3 φιάλας τε καὶ οἰνοχόας; 6.66.1 τειχία τε καὶ οἰκίαι; 7.30.3 ἱππέας τε καὶ ὁπλίτας; 7.31.5 σφενδονήτας τε καὶ ἀκοντιστὰς; 7.64.2 καθ’ ἑκάστους τε καὶ ξύμπαντες; 7.71.6 οἰμωγῇ τε καὶ στόνῳ; 7.75.7 ἀντὶ δ’ εὐχῆς τε καὶ παιάνων; 7.83.4 σίτου τε καὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἀπορίᾳ; 7.84.2 βάλλοντές τε καὶ κατακοντίζοντες; 8.1.1 τοῖς χρησμολόγοις τε καὶ μάντεσι; 8.1.2 φόβος τε καὶ κατάπληξις; 8.71.1 ἔνδοθέν τε καὶ ἔξωθεν.
[ back ] 113. See, for example, with noun phrases: Herodotus 7.190 ἄνδρας τε ἀναριθμήτους χρημάτων τε πλῆθος ἄφθονον; 9.122 ἀνθρώπων τε πολλῶν ἄρχομεν πάσης τε τῆς Ἀσίης. With verbal phrases: 1.15 Πριηνέας τε εἷλε ἐς Μίλητόν τε ἐσέβαλε; 3.35 Πρήξασπες, ὡς μὲν ἐγώ τε οὐ μαίνομαι Πέρσαι τε παραφρονέουσι; 3.50 διαλεγομένῳ τε οὔ τι προσδιελέγετο ἱστορέοντί τε λόγον οὐδένα ἐδίδου; 8.108 ἐδόκεόν τε ναυμαχήσειν σφέας παραρτέοντό τε; 7.207 αὐτοῦ τε μένειν ἐψηφίζετο πέμπειν τε ἀγγέλους ἐς τὰς πόλις. Across sentences: Herodotus 8.141 κάρτα τε ἔδεισαν μὴ ὁμολογήσωσι τῷ Πέρσῃ Ἀθηναῖοι· αὐτίκα τέ σφι ἔδοξε πέμπειν ἀγγέλους. The construction ἤν τε … ἤν τε … stands out for its shortness and symmetry: Herodotus 2.65 ἤν τε ἑκὼν ἤν τε ἀέκων; 3.99 ἤν τε γυνὴ ἤν τε ἀνήρ; 4.28 ἤν τε θέρεος ἤν τε χειμῶνος; 7.35 ἤν τε σύ γε βούλῃ ἤν τε μή; 7.85 ἤν τε ἵππου ἤν τε ἀνθρώπου; 7.102 ἤν τε ἐλάσσονες τούτων, ἤν τε καὶ πλέονες (cf. 7.83 οὔτε πλέονες μυρίων οὔτε ἐλάσσονες).
[ back ] 114. Clausal level: see, for example, Thucydides 1.8.3 οἵ τε ἥσσους ὑπέμενον τὴν τῶν κρεισσόνων δουλείαν, οἵ τε δυνατώτεροι περιουσίας ἔχοντες προσεποιοῦντο ὑπηκόους τὰς ἐλάσσους πόλεις; 1.23.1 τούτου δὲ τοῦ πολέμου μῆκός τε μέγα προύβη, παθήματά τε ξυνηνέχθη γενέσθαι …; 1.34.3 ὥστε ἀπάτῃ τε μὴ παράγεσθαι ὑπ’ αὐτῶν δεομένοις τε ἐκ τοῦ εὐθέος μὴ ὑπουργεῖν; 1.57.2 οἵ τε γὰρ Κορίνθιοι φανερῶς ἤδη διάφοροι ἦσαν, Περδίκκας τε ὁ Ἀλεξάνδρου Μακεδόνων βασιλεὺς ἐπεπολέμωτο. A complex symmetry occurs at 1.41.3 φίλον τε γὰρ ἡγοῦνται τὸν ὑπουργοῦντα, ἢν καὶ πρότερον ἐχθρὸς ᾖ, πολέμιόν τε τὸν ἀντιστάντα, ἢν καὶ τύχῃ φίλος ὤν ….
[ back ] 115. See above n108.
[ back ] 116. The idea of no commitment to one of the two conjuncts alludes to the recent scholarly discussion of English “or” as a means to express no commitment to one or even no commitment to either of two disjuncts by the speaker (see Ariel 2014).
[ back ] 117. Later (5.38) Herodotus informs us that during the Ionian revolt Coes was stoned to death by the Mytilenaeans.
[ back ] 118. §§89-90 provide input for different prosodic values of τε depending on whether the connection is forward- or backward-oriented.
[ back ] 119. See, e.g., Levinsohn 1987:174; Cooper 1998:1428.
[ back ] 120. See Hammer 1904:21-26 on the use of “sentential” τε in Herodotus; 43-47 on the same use in Thucydides.The author points out that Thucydides shows more than 400 instances: “Atque primum quidem particula τε, cui altera non respondet, apud Thucydidem multo plus quadringenties exstat, sed paucis locis exceptis hac simplici particula semper sententiae adseruntur” (Hammer 1904:38-39). As for Herodotus, see also Brouwer 1975:89. “Sentential” τε is already used in Homeric epic, albeit sporadically (see, for example, Homer Iliad 1.256, as discussed in Klein 1992:17). (t29) above represents one of the many instances of “sentential” τε in Thucydides (“The oldest sea-battle τε of which we know was that between the Corinthians and the Corcyraeans”).
[ back ] 121. See IV.3 §§3; 6; 9; 10 about punctuation as paralinguistic communication.
[ back ] 122. See IV.3.8.
[ back ] 123. As for such τε in Herodotus, see Hammer 1904:46, Lamberts 1970:118, and Brouwer 1975:86. According to Brouwer the function of τε in recapitulating statements is fulfilled also by the combination τε δή, which for Hammer (1904:36) is the most frequent τε combination used by Herodotus. IV.3 §128 takes up Brouwer’s observation in connection with the discourse functions of δή and μὲν δή.
[ back ] 124. The same principle applies to τε introducing the last item in a list, as Classen and Steup, and Gonda note. Denniston 1950:500, however, includes τε with conclusive force (“clinching or summing up of what precedes,” especially in Thucydides) in a section on “peculiarities in the use of single τε”. For Gonda’s idea of “complementarity,” see below §80.
[ back ] 125. See, for example, Thucydides 1.73, end of section 1 ἥ τε πόλις ἡμῶν ἀξία λόγου ἐστίν. Up to chapter 23 of book 1, this kind of τε in Thucydides occurs six times (1, end of chapter 4; 1.5, end of section 3; 1.12, end of section 3; 1, end of chapter 16; 1, end of chapter 22; 1.23, end of section 1). An interesting variation on the construction τε ... καί occurs at 3.25.2 ὅ τε χειμὼν ἐτελεύτα οὗτος, καὶ τέταρτον ἔτος τῷ πολέμῳ ἐτελεύτα τῷδε ὃν Θουκυδίδης ξυνέγραψεν. Two different acts are performed: first, the τε clause closes the smaller narrative section on the winter; second, καί links all the sections on the fourth year to this conclusion (which is emphasized by the authorial seal). Herodotean instances of τε in “coda” effects include book 1, end of chapter 111; 2.82.2; 3.88.3; book 7, chapter 58, end of section 2; end of chapter 175; 8.57.3; book 8.60, end of section α; 8.76, end of section 1; 8.108, end of section 3; 8.136.3. Significantly, in both works the locus often coincides with section (and even chapter) boundaries in modern editions.
[ back ] 126. Hartung 1832:88-89, 99; and Gonda 1954:199: τε indicates “virtually a complementary pair” (both in the connective and in the “epic” use). Denniston in 1934 could not foresee Gonda’s study. Ruijgh 1971 does mention it, but also dismisses it; the conciseness of his summary does not reflect the length and richness of the analysis that Gonda presents over two sizable articles. A more recent echo of the idea of complementarity expressed by τε in Herodotus is found in Brouwer 1975:85-94.
[ back ] 127. This projective role reminds us of μέν, which also works as a projection marker (II.2.4; III.5 §§35-36; IV.5 §33). In the case of μέν, the metalinguistic “warning” is different.
[ back ] 128. The passage was already quoted and commented on; see above (t10).
[ back ] 129. Herodotus 4.53.2 offers an example linguistically parallel to Thucydides 1.23.3: eight τε in seven OCT lines mark the list of benefits coming from the river Borysthenes, while the few καί in between mark sub-additions. Hammer analyzes variation in enumerations with τε and καί in Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon (1904:22-26; 55-59; 76-77 respectively).
[ back ] 130. In tragedy τε occurs about three times as often in songs. See III.2 §39.
[ back ] 131. See, e.g., III.2 §40 and 44.
[ back ] 132. See, among others, Smith 1900; Jung 1991; Nicolai 2001; Rutherford 2012.
[ back ] 133. Parallels between ancient Greek acts introduced by particles and intonational profiles are suggested also in II.2.5 concerning priming acts, and in IV.3 §65 about μέν.
[ back ] 134. See, for example, Liberman and Pierrehumbert 1984; Selkirk 1984 (about English); Truckenbrodt 2004 (about southern German).
[ back ] 135. Let us think of how we would utter a passage such as πλούτῳ τε ἰδίῳ καὶ δημοσίῳ καὶ ναυσὶ καὶ ἵπποις καὶ ὅπλοις καὶ ὄχλῳ (Thucydides 1.80.3); probably we would mark πλούτῳ ἰδίῳ prosodically (note the τε in between) by starting a list intonation profile.
[ back ] 136. The fact that different intonational contours are associated with the same lexical item in different positions or different constructions has been convincingly demonstrated by Ferrara 1997: the different sentence positions and the different pragmatic functions of “anyway” in English correspond to different intonational contours. A recent account of the prosodic spectrum of and in English conversation can be found in Barth-Weingarten 2012: variation in the phonetic design corresponds to variation in scope and in cognitive function.
[ back ] 137. Lysias 2 is an epitaph dedicated to the Athenians who had died while assisting the Corinthians in the Corinth war.
[ back ] 138. On average a καί occurs every 14.9 words (and every 24.8 words in Herodotus). Thucydides is not the only author using καί generously. The ratio for Xenophon is 1:18; Isocrates 1:20; Demosthenes 1:19. Trenkner (1960:1-5) calls this tendency in Attic and in later Greek (until the Greek of the New Testament) “καί-style.”
[ back ] 139. In several monographs and essays of the past centuries analyses of καί and καί combination include a richer spectrum of uses than in more recent works. See, for example, Devarius 1588:106-119 and Hoogeveen 1769:531-625. The latter divides the main functions of καί alone as follows: potestate συμμπλεκτικῇ (“combining,” 531); χρονικῇ (“temporal,” 535); προτρεπτικῇ (“hortatory/encouraging,” 538); ἐπιδοτικῇ (“offering more,” 541); ἐναντιωματικῇ (“οpposing/adversative,” 545); usu ἐλλειπτικῷ (“elliptical,” 547). The discourse functions of καί in drama are mainly discussed in III.2.2.2 and III.3.3.1.4.
[ back ] 140. On combinations versus clusters of particles, see I.1 §3. Hartung 1832-1833, vol. II:390-402 sees the affirmative force of μέν operate through μέν combinations such as ἦ μέν, καὶ μέν, γε μέν, and μέντοι. Analogously, Denniston 1950:57 sees the original asseverative force of γάρ remain in γάρ combinations.
[ back ] 141. 200 instances in Plato; 91 occurrences in Herodotus; 12 in the Corpus Hippocraticum; 4 in Xenophon; very few in other authors; none in Thucydides.
[ back ] 142. The primary meaning of the cluster, for Denniston, is to join sentences, clauses, and single words not differently from καὶ … δή (1950:254).
[ back ] 143. The example provided by Wennerstrom (2001:212) concerns a particularly high pitch, as well as lengthening of the vowels, put on the preposition “out” at the end of the following excerpt: [the teller conveys her excitement at going to a friend’s house as a child] “So I went over and uhh she was at the door and I said ‘Ask your mom’ and she did and she could come out” (Wennerstrom’s original prosodic transcription and pauses are dropped here; I just emphasize “out” by using italics). The clause “she could come out,” the author comments, “sets up motivation for the primary complicating action of the story: because of her extreme excitement, the teller runs and jumps, falls, and breaks her ankle.” The teller’s excitement is combined with the plot-related relevance of the information being added. The performative sign becomes an organizational signpost related to the complicating action being triggered by “and she could come out.”
[ back ] 144. Unlike γε, which also can be used to stress information for reasons that are left implicit, καὶ δὴ καί conveys an idea of narrowing down while adding, and it anticipates its effect over a multi-act unit.
[ back ] 145. See for example Laws 812d-e: “ … but as to divergence of sound and variety in the notes of the harp, when the strings sound the one tune and the composer of the melody another, or when (καὶ δή καί) there results a combination of low and high notes, of slow and quick time, of sharp and grave, [812e] and all sorts of rhythmical variations are adapted to the notes of the lyre,—no such complications should be employed in dealing with pupils who have to absorb quickly, within three years, the useful elements of music.” (tr. Bury).
[ back ] 146. Besides (t43), see Thucydides 1.107.7; 4.5.1 and 109.4; 5.90.1. The cluster occurs (sparsely) also in Sophocles, Aristophanes, Empedocles, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Antiphanes, the Corpus Hippocraticum, Plato, and Aristotle.
[ back ] 147. The continuation of this text will be analyzed at a later point (see §103).
[ back ] 148. Denniston 1950:294 limits his explanation of καί τι καί to the definition of the syntactic roles of the two καί (“the first καί is copulative, the second adverbial”); he also records the variants καὶ δή τι καί and καὶ πού τι καί. In Thucydides 2.87.2 καὶ πού τι καί hedges (through που) an addition that specifies but also slightly contradicts the preceding conjunct; ξυνέβη δὲ καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς τύχης οὐκ ὀλίγα ἐναντιωθῆναι, καί πού τι καὶ ἡ ἀπειρία πρῶτον ναυμαχοῦντας ἔσφηλεν, “It so happened too that bad luck was largely against us, and it may be that (καί πού τι καὶ) in our first sea-battle inexperience brought some mistakes” (tr. Hammond)
[ back ] 149. 65 οccurences in Herodotus; 44 in Thucydides; see II.3.2.2.1 for a discussion of the combination in Homer.
[ back ] 150. In this passage the reading of γάρ with scope over the sentence, and καί parallel to the subsequent καί (γὰρ + καὶ λίθοι, καὶ πλίνθοι, καὶ ξύλα, etc.) is to disfavor, as in Herodotus the duplication of καί (καί Χ, καί Y) is restricted to binary additions (e.g. 1.68 καὶ συντυχίῃ χρησάμενος καὶ σοφίῃ).
[ back ] 151. In this monograph the discourse functions of γάρ in Homer and in Pindar are described in II.3.2.2, and II.4.2; those related to drama are described in III.2.2.4 and III.3.3.1.5. γάρ is particularly suitable to open moves in Herodotus and Thucydides; see IV.3 §107-109, and IV.5 §§16; 39; 61; 68.
[ back ] 152. According to Lardinois 2006, γάρ in itself can connect a gnomic statement to a particular circumstance; in his interpretation of Sophocles Ajax 669-670 (καὶ γὰρ τὰ δεινὰ καὶ τὰ καρτερώτατα / τιμαῖς ὑπείκει …) γάρ is strengthened by καί.
[ back ] 153. Act boundaries following καὶ δή can be frequently inferred from Herodotus (see, e.g., Herodotus 1.214.1 καὶ δή | οὖτος μέν …; 3.64 καὶ δή | ὡς τότε …). Ιn a fragment of Eupolis (Austin fr. 92.1), the position of δέ attests to the perception of καὶ δή as a cluster: καὶ δὴ δὲ Πείσανδρ [ …
[ back ] 154. The sense of instantaneity conveyed by καὶ δή is perceived also by Devarius and by Hoogeveen, who translate καὶ δή as “continuo,” “protinus” (Devarius 1588:118), and “protinus,” “statim” (Hoogeveen 1769:573). IV.5 §83 and 86 discuss further occurrences of this cluster in Herodotus.
[ back ] 155. δή occurring in non-initial act position tends to have limited scope in our corpus; see II.3.3.2; III.2.2.8; IV.4 §100 and 4.6.2.
[ back ] 156. Ιn Homer the same force can be detected in connection with the appearance of something exciting: ἐννῆμαρ μὲν ὁμῶς πλέομεν νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ, / τῇ δεκάτῃ δ’ ἤδη ἀνεφαίνετο πατρὶς ἄρουρα, / καὶ δὴ πυρπολέοντας ἐλεύσσομεν ἐγγὺς ἐόντας, “Nevertheless we sail on, night and day, for nine days, / and on the tenth at last appeared the land of our fathers, and—look!--we see people tending fires, very close,” (Homer Odyssey 10.28-30; tr. adapted from Lattimore). On καὶ δή and καὶ μήν referring, in tragedy and comedy, to new entrances on stage, see Van Erp Taalman Kip 2009:112-123; Di Bari 2010:330. καὶ δή in drama can be used also when a speaker signals obedience to a request (see III.4 §§51-52). What is in common to the examples in this section is the simultaneity between a certain action and its verbalization.
[ back ] 157. A pragmatic analysis of “und zwar” is provided by Günthner 2012. “Und zwar” is the translation of several καί already proposed by Hartung 1832-1833, vol. I:145-147; Bäumlein (1861:147-148); Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950:568; Trenkner 1960:35 (“dans le sens de l’allemand ‘und zwar, nämlich’”). Verdenius 1956:249 adds “en wel” as a corresponding expression in Dutch. For καί at the start of questions that zoom in further on the content of the preceding utterance, see III.4 §36.
[ back ] 158. Pindar offers a clear example of this: … τὸν Ἀργείων τρόπον / εἰρήσεταί που κἀν βραχίστοις. “The story will be told, I think, in the Argive manner--that is, very briefly” Pindar Isthmian 6.58-59 (tr. AB). I see an equivalent enrichment of καί in the Homeric formulaic line ἀλλ’ ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον, “But tell me this, and give me an exact account” (e.g. Homer Iliad 24.380, tr. AB), where “give me an exact account” reformulates in more specific terms the content of “tell me.”
[ back ] 159. I do not exclude that τε in ἐπάρατόν τε ἦν μὴ οἰκεῖν, besides marking complementarity, also implies shared knowledge, as presumably more people knew the curse. The same holds for τε in τό τε Πελαργικὸν καλούμενον, besides the value of “sentential” τε.
[ back ] 160. The position of τε suggests a kôlon (and act) boundary before ἐπάρατόν; this element further supports that ὃ καί forms a unit (ὃ καὶ | ἐπάρατόν τε …).
[ back ] 161. καί in relative, causal, and final clauses “has the effect of putting such subordinate clauses on a plane with the main clause” (Smyth 1956:653); καί in subclauses (including relative clauses) strengthens the logical links of subordination (Humbert 1960:413); καί after relative pronouns expresses the accordance with a preceding concept (Bäumlein 1861:152).
[ back ] 162. Bonifazi 2004c argues that relative pronouns in early lyric and epic are devices often used to open narrative expansions about the referents.
[ back ] 163. This use of καί is already exploited in Homeric poetry. See, for example, the relative pronoun that accompanies the first mention of Nestor in the Iliad: τοῖσι δὲ Νέστωρ / ἡδυεπὴς ἀνόρουσε λιγὺς Πυλίων ἀγορητής / τοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ γλώσσης μέλιτος γλυκίων ῥέεν αὐδή, “Then among them rose up Nestor, sweet of speech, the clear-voiced orator of the men of Pylos, he from whose tongue speech flowed sweeter than honey” (Homer Iliad 1.247-249; tr. Murray-Wyatt). καί pins down ἡδυεπὴς ... ἀγορητής, as it introduces a little expansion on a specific quality of the hero, namely his gifted voice. If καί would modify the comparative γλυκίων (“even sweeter”), it probably would occur immediately before it, as focus particles typically do; conversely, the peninitial clause position fits a clausal scope (see Ι.1 §20). In Modern Greek και in association with relative pronouns seems to have a similar “expanding” function; Canakis (1995:41) translates these και “besides,” “among other things.”
[ back ] 164. Such a view allows readers to understand more precisely instances of καί (after relative pronouns) that are unrelated to “also” and “even,” e.g. Thucydides 2.13.7 ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῦ ὃ καὶ ἀφύλακτον ἦν, “there was … an unguarded section …”; Thucydides 1.101.2 δὲ τῶν Εἱλώτων ἐγένοντο οἱ τῶν παλαιῶν Μεσσηνίων τότε δουλωθέντων ἀπόγονοι· ᾗ καὶ Μεσσήνιοι ἐκλήθησαν οἱ πάντες, “The Helots were mostly the descendants of the Messenians who had been enslaved long ago: hence the name ‘Messenians’ given to all the Helots” (tr. Hammond). Some occurrences of καί after subordinating conjunctions appear to have the same discourse function. For example, in Herodotus 9.116.3 Artauctes, a Persian ruler, deceives Xerxes into plundering Protesilaus’ tomb by saying Τούτου μοι δὸς, τὸν οἶκον, ἵνα καί τις μάθῃ ἐπὶ γῆν τὴν σὴν μὴ στρατεύεσθαι, “give me this man’s house, so that all may be taught not to invade your territory” (tr. Godley). καί following ἵνα signals a focus on a specific aspect of the speaker’s purpose. A separate argument should be developed about εἰ καί and καὶ εἰ, the difference between the former and the latter being an object of much discussion in earlier literature (see for example Hartung 1832-1833, vol. I:139-140; Denniston 1950:299-303).
[ back ] 165. For δέ at the start of new questions in drama, see III.4 §34-§35.
[ back ] 166. See also Aeschylus Agamemnon 278 and Euripides Hecuba 515.
[ back ] 167. E.g. Bäumlein 1861:146-147; Smyth 1956:650 simply notes that καί often means “namely, for example.” In his Lexicon to Herodotus, Powell (1938:176-180) calls “epexegetic” 88 instances of καί introducing illustrations or specifications. Denniston does not mention this aspect for καί alone in general, except in a gloss to line 17 of the Homeric Hymn 3 to Apollo (κεκλιμένη πρὸς μακρὸν ὄρος καὶ Κύνθιον ὄχθον) where he notes: “καί means ‘and in particular’” 1950:291).
[ back ] 168. The visual character of this description might echo some image. From Herodotus 4.88.1 we assume that the historian knew (or knew about) the illustration committed by Mandrocles of Samos, which depicted Darius on the throne facing his army. I thank Pietro Liuzzo for pointing out to me this and other connections between historiography and paintings (see Liuzzo 2012).
[ back ] 169. Longacre 1985 argues that narrative peaks are usually accompanied by some turbulence on the linguistic level, which means, in our terms, that major discourse discontinuities occur. Short paratactic clauses and tense change in the peaks identified by Allan support Longacre’s finding. Peaks and turbulence are discussed in II.3 §§15-17; for δὴ τότε and καὶ τότε as peak markers, see II.3 §58.
[ back ] 170. A peak-marking καί that does not include the switch to a historical present is the following: ἤδη δὲ ἦν ὀψὲ καὶ ἐπεπαιάνιστο αὐτοῖς ὡς ἐς ἐπίπλουν, καὶ οἱ Κορίνθιοι ἐξαπίνης πρύμναν ἐκρούοντο κατιδόντες εἴκοσι ναῦς Ἀθηναίων προσπλεούσας, “It was now late in the day, and the paean for attack had already been sung when suddenly the Corinthians began to back water. They had caught sight of the approach of a further twenty Athenian ships…” (Thucydides 1.50.5; tr. Hammond). After the battle of Sybota in Thesprotia, the Corinthians sail to Corcyra to attack the Corcyraeans again. But off the coast they realize that twenty more ships of the Athenians reinforce the enemies, and decide to withdraw. The excerpt narrates the sudden moment when the Corinthians start to back water, which seems to be an unexpected move from the point of view of both Corcyreans and Athenians. The adverb ἐξαπίνης reinforces the climax. Herodotus makes use of the same discourse strategy. For an instance see the long episode of Cyrus and Croesus: καὶ τὸν Κῦρον ἀκούσαντα …, μεταγνόντα τε καί ἐννώσαντα …, πρός τε τούτοισι δείσαντα …, κελεύειν σβεννύναι τὴν ταχίστην τὸ καιόμενον πῦρ …, “When Cyrus heard … he relented and considered that …. In addition, he feared …. He ordered that the blazing fire be extinguished as quickly as possible” (Herodotus 1.86.6; tr. Godley). Cyrus had ordered Croesus to be burned alive. The fire was already burning when Apollo came to Croesus’ rescue, and it started to rain. Cyrus understood that his opponent was enjoying divine protection. Within the general frame of reported speech, καί initiates a prolonged peak: the real climax (κελεύειν σβεννύναι) is delayed, and therefore made even more effective, by a long series of participles intervening in between, which motivates Cyrus’ change of mind.
[ back ] 171. See Couper-Kuhlen 1988 about “postponed” when-clauses in English, where the comparison with Latin cum inversum is explicitly made.
[ back ] 172. Brouwer (1975:40) remarks that καί in τε … καί in Herodotus may indicate further particularization.
[ back ] 173. In this passage I read τε δή as a cluster having scope over the entire sentence. More on τε δή in IV.3 §128. Further instances of “breaking-off καί” occur, e.g., in Plato Euthydemus 273a καὶ οὔπω τούτω δύ’ ἢ τρεῖς δρόμους περιεληλυθότε ἤστην, καὶ εἰσέρχεται Κλεινίας (“And they took two or three turns, when Cleinias stepped in,” tr. Lamb); Xenophon Anabasis 1.2.6 ἐνταῦθα ἔμεινεν ἡμέρας ἑπτά· καὶ ἧκε Μένων ὁ Θετταλὸς (“he [Cyrus] remained there seven days; at that point Menon the Thessalian arrived,” tr. AB).
[ back ] 174. See II.2 §71 (t33) for a remark by Denniston about words preceding a μέν … δέ complex. The pattern “| καί | x μέν” followed by a δέ clause, or by another particle, or by a subclause, occurs already in the Iliad (35 tokens) and in the Odyssey (25 tokens). In Herodotus it occurs 153 times; in Thucydides 348 times. In IV.3 §§ 100-111 the same pattern is analyzed in terms of a minimal act (just καί) projecting a multi-act discourse unit.
[ back ] 175. In this respect, Rijksbaron’s discussion of καί … δέ in classical Greek (Rijksbaron 1997a), which centers on what is the connector and what is the adverb, should perhaps be examined more closely. Some of the instances may reveal a “καί | x δέ” pattern, which would change the segmentation of clauses and the discourse hierarchy. More in IV.3 §§110-111 on moves that start with this kind of καί. Contiguous καὶ δέ, conversely, occurs only in Homer, and infrequently (see the table at the end of the chapter). In those instances καί has scope over an entire act or entire move, while δέ further marks the beginning of that act or move.
[ back ] 176. For a prosodic analysis of and across different scopes, see, recently, Barth-Weingarten 2012. The greater the syntactic-semantic scope, the less reduced the phonetic design is.
[ back ] 177. IV.4 §§62-63 considers similar constructions, such as evaluative clauses starting with καί and including the verb δοκέω—for instance, Thucydides 1.143.3 Καὶ τὰ μὲν Πελοποννησίων ἔμοιγε τοιαῦτα καὶ παραπλήσια δοκεῖ εἶναι, τὰ δὲ ἡμέτερα … , “Such is broadly my view of the Peloponnesian position. Our own position …” (tr. Hammond).
[ back ] 178. The use of καί (usus μεταβατικός) with reference to Thucydides is already noted by Hoogeveen (1769:533-534).
[ back ] 179. See Thucydides 2.92.7; 3.86.5; 102.7; 4.49.1; 5.12.2; 50.5; 75.6; 82.6; 115.4; 6.62.5; 7.9.1; 8.1.4, and 28.5 (with θέρος), and 3.88.4; 4.51.1; 135.2; 5.51.2; 56.5; 83.4; 6.7.4; 93.4; 7.18.4; 8.6.5; 60.3 (with χειμών, winter).
[ back ] 180. Bakker (1997c:31), on 5.83.4 (mentioning the end of a winter which coincided with the end of the fifteenth year of war) points out: “in the recurrent year-end formula, the double use of kaí in combination with imperfects signals that the end of winter is not an assertion in its own right, but the end of a larger statement: the recording of a winter’s events.” The imperfect ἐτελεύτα can be seen as part of the rounding-off strategy as well. Again, Bakker remarks (1997c:30) “The imperfect verb eteleúta “ended” marking this transition does not denote an event as such in the narrative; rather, it is meant…to accommodate narrated events.” The general quality of imperfect tense in Rijksbaron (1984:12) is that “it creates a framework within which other actions may occur.” See also Allan 2007:106-107.
[ back ] 181. See §12. A similar use of καί in Herodotus occurs, for example, at 1.191.6 Καὶ Βαβυλὼν μὲν οὕτω τότε πρῶτον ἀραίρητο, “And Babylon, then, for the first time, was taken in this way”; 2.120.5 Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν τῇ ἐμοὶ δοκέει εἴρηται, “This is what I think, and I state it”; 9.121.1 Καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἔτος τοῦτο οὐδὲν ἐπὶ πλέον τούτων ἐγένετο, “This, then, is all that was done in this year.”
[ back ] 182. For discussion of a passage in Aristophanes with a similar sequence of καί in close succession with different scopes, see III.2 §35.
[ back ] 183. See above, n16 and n138 about the extensive employment of καί in Thucydides.
[ back ] 184. For the notion of “apodotic,” and instances of apodotic δέ, see above IV.2.2.4.
[ back ] 185. See Ὡς δέ οἱ ταῦτα ἔδοξε, καὶ ἐποίεε κατὰ τάχος, “This he [Cyrus] decided, and this he did immediately” (Herodotus 1.79.1; tr. AB). At 1.73 Herodotus narrates the details of the Scythians’ resolute decision taken to avenge the bad treatment received by Cyaxares, king of Media. The details regard the plan of a macabre banquet, and Ταῦτα καὶ ἐγένετο (1.73.6) confirms the exact correspondence between thoughts and action. Ταῦτα καὶ ἐγένετο occurs also in Herodotus 6.78.2. See also τὰ δὴ καὶ ἐγένετο (Herodotus 1.22.2; 5.92.δ.1; 9.56.1) and τά περ ὦν/ἂν καὶ ἐγένετο (Herodotus 2.2.3; 7.168.3; 8.109.5; 9.113.2). καὶ ἐγένετο in Thucydides occurs 12 times. Hoogeveen (1769:536) interprets connective καί to convey, sometimes, promptness (“celeritatis indicem”), so that actions are connected without any delay (“tempori nulla dilatio”). Trenkner 1960:66 notes the use of καί near actions after verba sentiendi or dicendi to mark explicitly the accomplishment of an order, and takes it as a sign of λέξις εἰρομένη.
[ back ] 186. The entire first chapter of Thucydides 8 is analyzed act by act, and move by move, in IV.5.3.
[ back ] 187. Translators avoiding too many and in a row conform to the unwritten rules of texts meant to be read; the less parataxis, the better. On these non-neutral choices regarding discourse segmentation, see above §7, and IV.3.
[ back ] 188. Incidentally, the speech ends with a “sentential” τε achieving a coda effect.
[ back ] 189. All the subsequent καί of the passage are translated, the last included. καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα μειζόνως ἐλάμβανον is rendered with “the Athenians took the matter more seriously still;” καί is interpreted as reinforcing the comparative μειζόνως with a scalar meaning. On scalarity, see below §123.
[ back ] 190. See in particular Blomqvist 1979 and Slings 1980.
[ back ] 191. Given that πυνθάνομαι in fact governs several clauses, we may take this καί adversativum as a καί introducing a multi-act unit. In addition, the temporal expression πρόκατε δή reminds us of postpostive δή after temporal adverbs in Homer (on which see II.3 §56), which suggests an act boundary (καὶ | πρόκατε δή).
[ back ] 192. For a discussion of this καί, see Blomqvist 1979:34.
[ back ] 193. For example, in “They should have told you, and they didn’t” (Sköries 1999:21; quoted in the Introduction), the speaker encodes with and her preference for expressing the link between the two contrasting situations rather than conveying the (obvious) opposition between them.
[ back ] 194. See II.3 §45 for propositional and non-propositional readings of ἔνθα in Homer.
[ back ] 195. Powell 1938:180 records these further Herodotean instances of καί meaning “or”: 2.121.α1 καὶ ὑπὸ δύο ἀνδρῶν καὶ ὑπὸ ἑνός; 3.101.1 ὅμοιον ... καὶ παραπλήσιον; 2.121β1 and 3.148.2 καὶ δὶς καὶ τρίς. In the scholion to Homer Iliad 15.634 the scholiast says that καί is used for disjunctive ἤ. For καί meaning “or,” see Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950:567n5; Denniston 1950: 292.
[ back ] 196. In a footnote towards the beginning of the chapter (n21) I mentioned Ariel’s argument about a “relational” versus “independent” interpretation of and-conjunctions (Ariel 2012). In my view the instances of καί as “or” are the only cases where an “independent” reading can be applied. The conjuncts have to be processed as separate alternatives, rather than as parts of a relational construct.
[ back ] 197. The notion of scalarity will be resumed in §123.
[ back ] 198. On the different focusing effects of focusing adverbs see in particular De Cesare 2010.
[ back ] 199. Starting from Karttunen and Peters (1979:23-33), who introduce the notion of focus, scope, and scalar implicature in association with ‘even’; ‘even’ not only evokes alternatives, but it also implies that the focus of ‘even’ is the extreme case of some state. A comparative account of additive focus particles in various IE languages is offered by König 1991. On modern Greek kai as “also,” “too” (“emphatic or intensifying” kai) see Canakis 1995:32-40. On ancient Greek καί as a scalar particle, see Bakker 1988:75; 84; 113-119; 205.
[ back ] 200. See in particular Hartung 1832-1833, vol. I:121; 133-136; 139-140. Devarius 1588:107; 109, and Hoogeveen 1769:541 calls this force of καί superaddendi vis. Ιn Homer the combination καί τε frequently introduces a specification; it can be translated as “and in particular”. Gonda (1954:265) observes that the member introduced by καί in καί τε is “stronger, more special or important (…); it contains a climax” and translates: “and also, and particularly.” See also Denniston 1950:291 “καί with a sense of climax,” and Cooper 2002:3016: “καί changing from simple conjunctional meaning into its adverbial acceptance (…) can introduce and effect either an ascending climax or a descending climax.”
[ back ] 201. I see the superaddendi vis of καί also when it follows δέ (see the consistent occurrences of δὲ καί across the authors of our corpus in the table at the end of the chapter). In those cases καί intensifies the following phrase, while δέ performs, independently, its ususal boundary marker function.
[ back ] 202. König (1991:16) has already taken into account the extension of the value of focus particles such as “also” and “only” to sentences, thus becoming “conjunctional adverbs.”
[ back ] 203. Thiersch 1826:571: καί after ἄλλος or ἄλλως provides a “closer link” (“engere Verbindung”).
[ back ] 204. See also Herodotus 1.80.1 διὰ δὲ αὐτοῦ ποταμοὶ ῥέοντες καὶ ἄλλοι καὶ Ὕλλος συρρηγνύουσι ἐς τὸν μέγιστον (“the Hyllus and other rivers flow across it and run violently together into the greatest of them” tr. Godley).
[ back ] 205. See also Herodotus 3. 14 ἐκ πολλῶν τε καὶ εὐδαιμόνων; 9.107 πολλά τε καὶ κακά (=8.61=9.107); 9.37 πολλά τε καὶ λυγρά; 9.37 πολλά τε καὶ ἀνάρσια; 6.114 πολλοί τε καὶ ὀνομαστοί; 8.73 πολλαί τε καὶ δόκιμοι; 8.89 πολλοί τε καὶ ὀνομαστοὶ; 9.27 πολλά τε καὶ εὖ ἔχοντα. An earlier parallel is the Homeric hendiadys … πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλά, occurring eight times; the second adjective qualifies more specifically the items referred to. A different case is the hendiadys καλός κἀγαθός. Especially in Xenophon the wording becomes a unified concept that lets us think of καί replacing τε used in what some scholars call “natural” coordination (on which see §62).
[ back ] 206. Further examples are: ἐς ὃ στρατευσάμενος ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἀσσυρίους καὶ Ἀσσυρίων τούτους οἳ Νίνον εἶχον …, “until he [Deioces] marched against the Assyrians; that is, against those of the Assyrians who held Ninus” (Herodotus 1.102.2; tr. Godley); τούτων Πασαργάδαι εἰσὶ ἄριστοι, ἐν τοῖσι καὶ Ἀχαιμενίδαι εἰσὶ φρήτρη …, “The chief tribe is that of the Pasargadae; to them belongs the clan of the Achaemenidae, (…)” (Herodotus 1.125.3, tr. Godley).
[ back ] 207. I take the first καί as a particle intensifying ἀμφότερα (see below (t72)).
[ back ] 208. Gomme et al. 1945-1981, vol. IV:119 considers the word order of this clause unexpected. In light of the analyses of isolated referents in this monograph (II.2.5; III.5 §§30-33; IV.3.11.1), I propose to read an act boundary after τὰ στρατόπεδα: τὰ στρατόπεδα | ποιεῖ μὲν καὶ ἅπαντα τοῦτο.
[ back ] 209. See, for example, Ηoogeveen 1769:578 (about καὶ μάλα); Sturz 1801-4, vol. II:616 on Xenophon; Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950:567. Denniston 1950:325 lists the marking of affirmation in the paragraph devoted to “special difficulties” about καί.
[ back ] 210. Jiménez Delgado 2013 explores the development of the combination καὶ μάλα into an affirmative answer, starting from the use of the combination in Xenophon.
[ back ] 211. I see a parallel in Pindar: … τάχα δ’ εὐθὺς ἰὼν σφετέρας / ἐστάθη γνώμας ἀταρβάκτοιο πειρώμενος / ἐν ἀγορᾷ πλήθοντος ὄχλου. / τὸν μὲν οὐ γίνωσκον· ὀπιζομένων δ’ ἔμπας τις εἶπεν καὶ τόδε· / ‘Οὔ τί ποῠ οὗτος Ἀπόλλων … “Putting this intrepid resolve to the test, he quickly went straight ahead, and stood in the agora as a crowd was thronging. They did not recognize him, but awestruck as they were, one of them nevertheless said, among other things: ‘Surely this is not Apollo, (…)’ (Pindar Pythian 4.83-87, tr. Race). I claim that there is no need to translate καὶ τόδε, “also this” or “among other things,” as if the anonymous onlooker actually delivered a longer speech than the reported one, as Giannini supposes in Gentili et al. (1995:453): “καὶ τόδε: ‘anche questo’ oltre ‘al resto’”; or as if he were about to say extreme things, in accordance with scalar “even”. Pindar simply makes him delineate a short mythological excursus establishing who the mysterious hero they are admiring (Jason in fact) is not (which triggers suspense). The onlooker says just or exactly this, with καί contributing a pinning down-effect further carried on by the proleptic τόδε, and, most of all, by the exact words uttered at that moment and re-performed in the song.
[ back ] 212. This typically happens in Thucydides. For example, the chapter on the plague symptoms (2.49) contains 35 καί over 351 words (1 καί every 12.2 words on average, against the overall average of once per 14.9 words). Beyond quantity, the series of καί additions concerning body parts being affected, and the devastating effects, contributes to the poignancy of the description.
[ back ] 213. Sköries (1998:53) notes that only after reaching the end of the second item linked by and it is possible to detect where the first item begins.
[ back ] 214. See above §§80-81 in the section on τε.
[ back ] 215. If we take into account Herodotus and Thucydides, the employment of καί for narrative progression is more regular in Thucydides than in Herodotus, partly because of the greater use of καί by the former, and because of the greater use of δέ by the latter (which echoes the epic use of δέ for subsequent narrative steps). In a brief survey of the linguistic constructions that ancient Greek historians use for storytelling, Dover focuses on the employment of καί (1997:71-77). The scholar compares the frequency of “simple καί” across samples from Pherecydes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, and Xenophon. Thucydides scores much higher than Herodotus. “(…) the difference is spectacular in respect of simple καί (…). Ιt is clear that (…) Herodotus departed very markedly from the ‘καί-style’” (p. 73 for the quotation).
[ back ] 216. IV.3.2 and IV.3.3 discuss how modern punctuation generally influences the segmentation of the text. The linking power of καί generates some reluctance, by modern editors, to put full stops before the particle. For instance, the TLG edition of Thucydides (Stuart Jones) includes only 77 καί after full stops.
[ back ] 217. Colleagues working on “conjunctive adverbs” challenge the first dichotomous formulation as well (see above §4).
[ back ] 218. See above 2.2.3 and §78 respectively.
[ back ] 219. See, e.g. Bach and Harnish 1979; Ifantidou-Trouki 1993 offers an updated discussion of sentential adverbs.
[ back ] 220. See (t10), (t20), (t38), (t41).
[ back ] 221. See §§65-69.
[ back ] 222. See above 2.3.7.