chapter two

THE HISTORICAL PRESENT IN THUCYDIDES:

CAPTURING THE CASE OF ΑΙΡΕΙ AND ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙ1

Rutger J. Allan

Résumé
Dans les grammaires traditionnelles, la valeur du temps présent est générale-
ment définie comme exprimant la simultanéité avec le moment de l’ énonciation.
On rend souvent compte de l’ usage narratif du présent (présent historique, ‘PH’)
en disant que le narrateur décrit des événements passés comme s’ ils avaient
lieu en même temps qu’ ils sont narrés (simultanéité virtuelle). Nous soutenons
ici que la notion de simultanéité temporelle est reliée à la notion plus générale
d’ immédiateté épistémique (en anglais ‘epistemic immediacy’). Cela signifie que
l’ événement décrit est presenté comme directement accessible au narrateur et à
sa connaissance du monde. La fonction générale du PH est de marquer le pre-
mier plan (‘foreground’) de la narration. Plus spécifiquement chez Thucydide,
le PH est employé en deux positions dans la structure du récit : au commence-
ment de l’ épisode et au ‘peak’ (climax, tournant) de l’ épisode. Prendre une ville,
des fortifications, des navires sont des actes cruciaux dans le déroulement de la
guerre. Il n’ est pas surprenant par conséquent que le PH des verbes αρ ω et
λαμβ νω soit employé fréquemment pour marquer le climax d’ un épisode. Le
verbe αρ ω s’ applique à la prise d’ objets immobiles, comme villes et fortifica-
tions. Le verbe quasi-synonyme λαμβ νω s’ applique au contraire typiquement
à la prise de navires ou de personnes.

General Observations on the Use of the Historical Present

Before I will turn to an analysis of the use of the historical present of the
verbs αρ ω and λαμβ νω in Thucydides, I would like to make a number
of general observations on the nature and function of the historical
present in Greek which will serve as a basis for my case-study.
The historical present is a present tense. A natural starting-point for a
discussion of the historical present is, therefore, its relationship with the

1 I would like to thank the members of the Groupe de recherche sur l’ Aspect en Grec

ancien, especially Michel Buijs, Coulter George, Jean Lallot, Odile Mortier-Waldschmidt
and Albert Rijksbaron for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.
 rutger j. allan

other major uses of the present tense (or primary indicative)—the actual
present and the generic-habitual present (e.g. K-G, , , Rijksbaron
b: –). The present indicative is often described as representing
the action as simultaneous with the moment of speech. The special case of
the historical present is accounted for by assuming that the speaker trans-
fers himself mentally to the time of the event, thereby creating virtual
simultaneity. In the words of Kühner-Gerth, ‘( . . . ) indem der Redende
sich in die Zeit zurückversetzt, wo die Handlung sich abspielte’.2 The nar-
rator and reader relive the past events by replaying them in their minds.
While this traditional view is, to my mind, basically correct, I would like
to elaborate on it by introducing a more general semantic notion bear-
ing on the present tense, the notion of epistemic immediacy. Epistemic
immediacy is connected to temporal simultaneity; it concerns the idea
that the state of affairs which is referred to is somehow directly accessible
(proximal) to the speaker and hearer and their knowledge of the world
(see Langacker , , Langacker ). The notion of immediacy is
able to clarify the crucial distinction between the present tense (in the
sense of primary indicative) and the past tense (secondary indicative) in
Greek. While the present tense can be seen as a signal of immediacy, the
past tense can best be characterized as a marker of epistemic distance. The
abstract notion of epistemic distance can account for both the temporal
meaning of the past tense (referring to past time) and its modal (counter-
factual) meanings. The use of the present tense as a sign of simultaneity
with the moment of speech can be considered the prototypical (most cen-
tral) meaning of the present tense form. This explains its prominence in
many traditional descriptions of the present tense. Likewise, past-time
reference can be seen as the prototypical meaning of past tense forms.
From a morphological point of view, the semantics of immediacy can-
not be attributed to the primary endings of the present tense only (as
proposed by Sicking & Stork , ). This can be gathered from the
fact that the future and the subjunctive (which, after all, also have pri-
mary endings) refer to events which are of less immediate concern to the
speaker simply because do not occur at the moment of speaking and their

2 Present tense forms referring to future states of affairs (see K-G, , –) are

to be regarded as a related phenomenon. The historical present can be seen, in my view,

as a subtype of what Bühler calls Deixis am Phantasma (deixis relating to an imaginary
origo). The second subtype of Deixis am Phantasma is characterized by Bühler as the type
‘wo Mohammed zum Berge geht. Man is nach einem charakteristischen Erlebnisvorspiel
oder unvermittelt und plötzlich hinversetzt in der Vorstellung an den geografischen Ort
des vorgestellten, (. . .)’ (Bühler  []: ).