Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T06:30:08.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greek Expressions of Thanks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. H. Quincey
J. H. Quincey
Affiliation:
Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to examine the meaning and function of certain expressions used for conveying thanks in Greek. It does not pretend to be an exhaustive survey of all the expressions which are used in this connexion, but is restricted in scope to the Greek of the classical period and to those expressions which were in common use in conversation to convey thanks when an offer, gift, etc., was being accepted or declined. These expressions it will be convenient to call ‘responsive formulae’.

The ordinary expressions for feeling or conveying thanks combine χάριν with a verb such as εἰδέναι or ἔχειν, but as readers of Greek literature will have become aware, if only subconsciously, these combinations are not to be found used responsively in the prose or verse of the classical period. Before this sweeping generalisation provokes outright contradiction, let it be freely admitted that cases of the responsive use do exist.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 86 , November 1966 , pp. 133 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In Eur. Alc. 626–7, Pheres is evidently blessing, not thanking, the dead Alcestis.

2 I discount εὐδαιμονοίης in Ar. Ach. 446, since this, the traditional reading, plays havoc with the syntax without any corresponding gain in comic effect. It has been irregularly imported from 457; see A. Müller (Hanover, 1863) and Van Leeuwen (Leiden, 1901).

3 Demianczuk, , Supp. Com. 102 Google Scholar; Page, , Greek Literary Papyri i 288.Google Scholar

4 See PACA iv (1961) 4–5.

5 Menander: Die Komödie und Fragmente, Zürich 1949.

6 The repetition of τρέφειν at the end of ll. 749–50 of the I.A. provides no parallel; there is rhetorical point there.

7 A rather more violent case of misplaced but more easily accounted for, has already been noticed in Eur. Hel. 1579–80, see also Eur. Cycl. 121.

8 LSJ 9 assigns this example to the category of ‘Well said!’, and this may be right; cf. 1212–13.

9 The dative Μενέλεῴ in Eur. Hel. 1273 has been entailed by the addition of πρὸς χάριν.

10 Hence we must reject Dobree's conjecture ἔχοι μοι in Eur. Telephus fr. 707 (as given by schol. Ar. Ach. 446), that is, if ἔχοι μοι purports to be a formula of acceptance.

11 See Skemp, J. B., Plato's Statesman, p. 234 n. 1.Google Scholar The instances of responsive καλῶς, ὀρθῶς and ἀληθῆ in the Sophist and the Statesman have been examined by Benardete, S., The Right, the True and the Beautiful (a singularly inept title), Glotta xli (1963) 54–62 Google Scholar, but the thanking function of καλός here and at 279c, κάλλιστ' εἶπες, has eluded him.

12 Plat. Phaedr. 267c, Hermeias' schol. p. 192 Ast, Dion Hal. De Comp. 23.

13 The careless habits of the Suda are well illustrated in a recent note by Cameron, A. D. E. in CR n.s. xiii (1963) 264.Google Scholar

14 Occasionally extra lemmata are added in this way in Hesychius, as is каὶ αἰνῶ σε in the Suda; but as Prof. G. P. Shipp has pointed out to me, these are usually rare words or unusual forms cognate with the original lemma, and there is no reason why an extra lemma ἐπαινῶ should have been provoked by αἰνῶ.

15 I am indebted to Dr W. Ritchie for this point.

16 Pertusi, A., Schol. Vet. in Hes. Op., 205.Google Scholar For Plutarch's commentary on Hesiod, see Westerwick, O., De Plutarchi studiis Hesiodeis (Münster, 1893).Google Scholar

17 Cf. ἄλλοτε in the passage cited. We find νῦν κέχρηται in Mor. 47b of a lecturer and not a writer, but the principle is the same.

18 Cited by Gaisford, , Poet. Min. Graec. i 40 n.Google Scholar

19 Miscellaneous Notes on the Works and Days, CQ xi (1917) 117.Google Scholar

20 E.g. Antiphon the Sophist fr. 44 Diels-Kranz6 ii 346–7 and the tragic passages cited by Pearson on Soph. fr. 28. Pearson's idea that ἐπαινεῑν means ‘damn with faint praise’ is untenable.

21 Paley's view that laudato means ‘refuse’ is rightly rejected by Gow as unparalleled. We should likewise reject the view put forward by Penna, A. La, Esiodo Nella Cultura e Nella Poesia di Virgilio, Fondation Hardt Entretiens vii 241 Google Scholar, that Vergil was here attacking Hesiod; see the discussion ibid. 269–70.

22 For speed as a characteristic of the oar-driven vessel see e.g. Eur. Hel. 1272, κώπη ταχύπορος.

23 For assistance over this scholium I am indebted to Dr K. J. McKay of Melbourne University.

24 Apart from traditional epic vocabulary, common to the two poets, the only verbal correspondence is πλόος … ὥριος with ὡραῑον … πλόον, W.D. 630, and ὡραῑος … πλόος, W.D. 665, and neither of these passages lies close enough to 643.

25 See LSJ 9 s.v. and Fraenkel on Ag. 583. in IA 1503 is a hard case. I should account for the aor. part. by the speaker's aspect; she contemplates her life as a thing terminated.

26 See, however, Handley, and Rea, , The Telephus of Euripides (London, 1957), 24.Google Scholar

27 Van Groningen 62.

28 Proposed by several scholars, including the present writer in AHRC ii.

29 I am greatly indebted to Messrs F. H. Sandbach and M. W. Frederiksen for the helpful suggestions which they have made to me during the preparation of this article; but it should not be assumed that they agree with any of the views expressed in it.