# FR: passé composé + passé simple - using the tenses together in the narrative of a literary text



## Joelline

*Moderator note*: multiple threads merged to create this one

Bonsoir,
I know similar questions have been asked, but none of the links quite answer my questions. I'm trying to understand the current use of the passé composé *with* the passé simple. For example, in a rather elementary-level "Histoire de la France" textbook, I find:

(1) (on Vercingétoix) "La Gaule *fut* conquise par les armées de César. Mais les Gaules *ne se sont pas soumis* sans une forte lutte."

(2) (on Ste Geneviève et Attila) "Les soldats gaulois *furent* incapables d'arreter les barbares, et Attila, victorieux, *a mené* ses guerriers jusqu'aux portes de Paris. ... Mais Geneviève ,,, *a encouragé* le peuple à prier et a ne pas s'enfuir. Leurs prières *furent* exaucées lorsque Attila *a dirigé* son armée vers Orléans.

Throughout the text, it would appear that only avoir and être are regularly used in the passé simple (though I did find one use of "il prit"). 

Is this usage legitimate? Outside of schoolbook texts, would this be done commonly? Is there some problem with using the passé composé where the passé simple is used in these passages?

Merci.


----------



## Gil

> Is this usage legitimate?


Oui.


> Outside of schoolbook texts, would this be done commonly?


Non.


> Is there some problem with using the passé composé where the passé simple is used in these passages?


With some verbs, the passé simple and the subjonctif imparfait are too complicated and we look for some other way of saying the same thing. The passé composé is often a good solution.


----------



## Joelline

I'm sorry, Gil.  I phrased my last question badly: If one is going to be using the passé composé anyway throughout most of the text, why bother using the passé simple at all?  Why would the writer not just write, "La Gaule *a été *conquise par les armées de César. Mais les Gaules ne se sont pas soumis sans une forte lutte"?


----------



## CARNESECCHI

Hello,
Si on veut être strict :
(1) (on Vercingétoix) "en 52 avant Jesus-Christ La Gaule *fut* conquise par les armées de César. Mais les Gaules *ne se sont pas soumis* sans une forte lutte."
Si ce n'est pas daté, ce doit être "La Gaule a été ..."
"ne se sont pas soumis" si on veut insister sur la durée, "ne se soumirent pas" si on veut prolonger le "datage" de la 1ère phrase.

(2) (on Ste Geneviève et Attila) "Au début Les soldats gaulois *furent* incapables d'arreter les barbares, et Attila, victorieux, *a mené* mena ses guerriers jusqu'aux portes de Paris. ... Mais (sous-entendu : à ce moment-là) Geneviève *a encouragé* encouragea le peuple à prier et a ne pas s'enfuir. Leurs prières *furent* exaucées lorsque Attila *a dirigé/* dirigea son armée vers Orléans.

S' on ne met pas "au début" ou un repère dans le temps, ce doit être "les soldats gaulois étaient incapables ..."

Je pense que "lorsque Attila a dirigé" reste correcte parce que cette partie n'est pas datée explicitement. Mais on peut utiliser "dirigea" si on prolonge le "datage" de la 1ère partie.


----------



## dadolyem

Dans le texte suivant, l'auteur utilise le passé composé et le passé simple dans le même contexte.  J'avais appris que c'était l'un ou l'autre.
_
Mais la lutte contre le racisme n’a pas commencé avec l’histoire du MRAP.  Le racisme est une vieille histoire.  L’esclavage fut longtemps, de l’antiquité jusqu'à nos jours, la manifestation la plus spectaculaire du racisme.

_Une explication, svp.


----------



## Cyrrus

Mais il n'y a pas de problèmes ici à l'utilisation de plusieurs temps. Chacun est bien délimité dans  sa phrase et n'est pas dépendant des autres. Chaque phrase exprime une idée différente, aucune n'est subordonnée à une autre.

Ceci dit, dans la dernière, on aurait aussi bien pu écrire " L'esclavage a été longtemps..." 

C'est la liberté de l'auteur de l'écrire ainsi.


----------



## geostan

J'avoue que ça me paraît un peu bizarre. S'il y avait un rapport avec le présent dans le cas du verbe _commencer_, je comprendrais la juxtaposition des deux temps dans la même phrase, mais tel n'est pas le cas ici. J'aurais probablement mis le verbe _commencer_ au passé simple.

Voici ce qu'en dit Grevisse:

...Le passé simple quand la subordonnée exprime un fait complètement achevé à un moment déterminé du passé, sans considération du contact que ce fait, en lui-même ou par ses conséquences, peut avoir avec le présent.

Puis il donne cet exemple:

Je vous ai dit qu'un beau jour il disparut.

Donc, la présence du passé composé n'exclut pas le passé simple.
Cela dit, dans la première phrase, j'aurais tout de même préféré le passé simple pour le verbe _commencer._


----------



## itka

La phrase est parfaitement claire et correcte.
Si le verbe "commencer" était au passé simple, comme le suggère geostan, on aurait un sens légèrement différent : cela impliquerait que cette "lutte [qui] commença avec l'histoire du MRAP est maintenant terminée, de l'histoire ancienne...ce qui n'est malheureusement pas le cas.


----------



## Jacques L. Dupin

Cette phrase ne me pose aucun problème et je dirais même qu'elle illustre le mouvement que l'on peut donner au récit en jouant sur les temps. On a affaire ici à du discours, et même à cette forme particulière du discours qu'est le conte : ce gars nous raconte une histoire, il s'arrête entre chaque phrase, il cherche à capter notre attention. Ce texte, somme toute banal dans son contenu, est raconté par un conteur qui lui donne vie. Alors, ce n'est pas le moment de jouer aux grammairiens coincés. Je pense que Grévisse, que je respecte énormément, comme il se doit, aurait apprécié cette phrase.


----------



## bartosz

I was wondering if it is okay to mix passe simple with passe compose or imparfait in a single sentence, or is passe simple reserved only for writing and cannot be used along with other forms.


----------



## Aristide

1) it is okay to mix passé simple with imparfait in the same sentence
2) it is not okay to mix passé simple with passé composé in the same sentence
3) passé simple is indeed reserved for writing

PS: 4) it is okay to mix passé composé with imparfait in the same sentence


----------



## bartosz

> 2) it is not okay to mix passé simple with passé composé in the same sentence


How about same essay, not necessarily sentence?


----------



## Cosmobob

Great question:  Is it OK to mix in the same essay sentences using passe simple with sentences using passe compose.  For instance, I am writing a current history article where I refer to historical events with passe simple...but I want to switch to passe compose when talking about more recent developments because it seems more _active_.  Can I?

Is it OK to mix in the same essay sentences using passe simple with sentences using passe compose?  If yes, what are the guidelines? 

For instance, I am writing a current history article where I refer to historical events with passe simple...but I want to switch to passe compose when talking about more recent developments because it seems more _active_.  

"  L'armée fut détournée par Parti Baas arabe socialiste (1963)."
then
 "En culbutant Saddam, les Américains ont renvoy é l'Irak au carrefour de 1958."


----------



## Fred_C

Hi,
Yes you can switch.
The rule is that you must use the "passé composé" tense when you  need a present perfect in English.
Incidentally, this situation is rare inside a story in the past.


----------



## Wyn

Bonjour à tous,
Since I first started learing French, I have been bothered by the use of the passé composé in the narrative of a literary text. Since as long ago as the 12th century, French has been using the passé composé both as present perfect and as preterit!
"J'ai perdu mes clefs" and
"Je ne peut pas entrer dans la maison car j'ai perdu mes clefs."
These are both the passé composé used as a present perfect - it means 
"Mes clefs SONT perdues" (at the moment of enunciation)
But
"La semaine dernière, j'ai perdu mes clefs" is merely a past tense = a preterit. an event contemporary with last week - it does not imply anything about the time of enunciation i.e. the speaker's presnt. One cannot infer that the keys are still lost at the moment of enunciation. This is the position in spoken French.
My question is this:-
Many well known authors, members of the Avadémie française sometimes write in the present historic, that is they place the narrator in that past time so that the main tense used in the narrative, in writing about the past is the present tense. The past tense used is the PASSÉ COMPOSÉ used both as present perfect and as preterit. DO the FRENCH consider this to be a LITERARY STANDARD LANGUAGE -une langue soignée ou soutenue ? ( I am concerned ONLY in the NARRATIVE of a text- not in the direct speech of the characters)
I would appreciate your views
Wyn


----------



## jann

Hello Wyn,

You actually have a mix of questions here.  Let me try to dissect them a bit. 

*1. *The first matter to address is whether or not use of the present historic is standard literary language.  Of course, if an author is using the historic present, he must respect _la concordance des temps_ within the framework of the historic present!  We have discussed the historic present quite a bit in threads like this one... FR: présent historique/de narration - historical/literary present.

*2.* The second matter is about the choice of tenses _- la concordance des temps_ - within the framework of the historic present.  I can make a few comments on that here.

The phenomenon you describe - using _passé composé _without distinguishing between situations where the preterit vs. the present perfect would be used in English - is not literary or narrative or even specific to the historic present.  It is just a overarching feature of the French language.  The preterit v. present perfect distinction that is so important to English simply does not exist in French.  

In English, when we choose a tense, we must ask ourselves whether or not the past event continues in the present or is somehow still relevant in the speaker's mind at the moment when he speaks.  If so, we use the present perfect.  If not, we use the preterit.

In French, relevance is irrelevant.  To use a past tense, the event must be totally in the past: it needs to have started in the past, and it needs to have ended in the past.  The question we have to ask ourselves when choosing a past tense is totally different.  We need to know if the event was punctual, of definite duration (--> passé composé)... or if conversely, it was of indefinite duration, such as a description or a habit (--> imparfait).  Obviously, we don't care about the "punctual" nature or duration of an event when we choose a tense in English... and the French tense options don't convey information about the present relevance that is so important in English.   

In French, in order to communicate a condition that continues in the present (e.g., I have lived here for 5 yrs), we use the present in French.  In order to indicate that a punctual past event (e.g., I lost my keys on Monday, passé composé) has consequences that continue now (e.g., ... and I still haven't found them!), we need to specify these consequences using a present tense in French.

So in the end, usage of the passé composé for both EN preterit an EN present perfect is not a choice, or a question of style.  It is a grammatical requirement of the French language... regardless of whether you are speaking, writing informally, or writing in the historic present.

*3. *The third factor relevant to your question is a synthesis...

In spite of what I've told you so far,  there actually is a way in French to distinguish between present perfect sorts of situations vs. preterit sorts of situations.  But it requires use of the passé simple... and it is *not* totally parallel with English.  Texts about the past written using the passé simple will also use the passé composé - and in most of those cases, the verbs conjugated in passé composé would be in the present perfect in English.  (However the inverse is not true:  just because we use the present perfect in English does not mean that a passé composé would be used in French). The complication is that we don't use the passé simple when writing in the historic present.

So the question for the natives becomes this:  We can write about the past using the passé simple (and thus being able to make an occasional distinction v. passé composé)... or we can write about the past using the present historic (and therefore losing the possibility of a distinction between passé simple v. passé composé).  Are these two strategies equally literary?  Does one seem more _soutenu_ than the other?


----------



## Wyn

Bonsoir Jann
Thank you for a very full reply to my question.

There is one part of your reply which puzzles me – I may have misinterpreted it :-
...there actually is a way in French to distinguish between present perfect sorts of situations vs. preterit sorts of situations. But it requires use of the passé simple... and it is *not* totally parallel with English. Texts about the past written using the passé simple will also use the passé composé - and in most of those cases, the verbs conjugated in passé composé would be in the present perfect in English."
especially
"Texts about the past written using the passé simple will also use the passé composé"
I do not know what kind of narrative you have in mind. 
In what I call the classical style; the narrator writing about a past time when he is outside that period, the passé simple and the imperfect being the main tenses. I have *never* seen the use of the passé composé with the passé simple in the narrative of a this kind of literary text – the plus-que-parfait i.e. the past perfect– YES as an « accompli du passé » anterior to that past time, but not the passé composé . Unless of course the narrator wishes to use a device such as reverting for a short time to the present tense to make something more vivid and in this context using the passé composé ( this is not the present historic which permeates the whole of a text but a kind of present of narration which is used only in a scene or so) Or if the enunciator wishes to comment on something from his own present time ( the present of enunciation). This last example is more often found when the narrator tells the story in the first person as in an autobiography.
You may of course be referring to a different kind of narrative.
Could you please give examples of what you mean by the use of the passé simple AND the passé composé in the same narrative.
Thanks again
Wyn


----------



## L'Inconnu

Wyn said:


> I have *never* seen the use of the passé composé with the passé simple in the narrative of a this kind of literary text –


I won’t speak about modern French texts, but I have seen the passé simple in opposition with the passé composé in older French works. Following is an excerpt from a personal letter written in 1768.

…Cette femme désespérée se démena de façon qu’elle rompit ses liens, et se jeta par la fenêtre qui donnait sur la rue; on ne dit point qu’elle se soit blessée en tombant; tout le peuple s’attroupa autour d’elle; _le lieutenant de police a été informé de ce fait_; _on a arrêté M. de Sade_; il est, dit-on, dans le château de Saumur …

I presume that you wouldn’t use the passé simple in a letter today, even if you were sending it to Sarkozy. As I see it, the passé simple corresponds to out preterit, while the passé composé corresponds to our present perfect. So, I translate the two sentences in italics as follows:

"the police lieutenant *has been informed* of this incident. Mr. de Sade* has been arrested*."

Notice the transition to the present tense in the last sentence. This pattern fits well with the idea that the passé composé is being used to stress how these events have consequences in the present.

I've also noticed that in older texts, the so-called literary tenses were actually spoken by the characters in the story. So, I am wondering if in those days it was customary for French people to use the passé simple and the passé composé in day to day conversation just as English speakers use the preterit and the present perfect tenses today.


----------



## jann

Wyn said:


> In what I call the classical style; the narrator writing about a past time when he is outside that period, the passé simple and the imperfect being the main tenses. I have *never* seen the use of the passé composé with the passé simple in the narrative of a this kind of literary text [...] Could you please give examples of what you mean by the use of the passé simple AND the passé composé in the same narrative.


I agree that it is rare to see a passé composé in a text written in passé simple, but you do come across it on occasion.  And as you say, when you do, it is often to communicate something outside of the principle story line.  When I wrote that comment, I was thinking of histories... but I suspect you may have been thinking of narratives (fiction, stories) when you mentioned "classical style."

[…]


----------



## Wyn

Bonjour Jann, l’Inconnu et à tous

When I said that I have not seen the passé composé in the narrative, I was referring to the classical style - that of Balzac, Flaubert etc. This is not so with certain modern authors notably *Patrick Modiano* – I don’t know whether you are familiar with his novels. His narrator always uses the first person and much of his novels are autobiographical – he is always searching for something or someone in the past - like a cathartic exercise. I will refer to “Livret de famille” which is a novel based on his own life. 

In chapter 4 of this book he uses the passé simple to express actions in the narrative and writes in a kind of classical style until, without any reason that I can think of, turns to the passé composé in the narrative then back to the passé simple and back again to the passé composé etc. I cannot understand why he keeps changing from passé simple to passé composé and back again several times in the NARRATIVE.

[*Moderator note: *citations are limited to four sentences, so we've had to edit this post heavily, replacing quotes with paraphrasing.  Square brackets and ellipses indicate our changes.] 

He tells us of his mother as a young girl starting her carrier as a film actress and then she changes film companies and signes a contract with the Openfeld brothers who have a Studio in Brussels. When she is to go to the Studios, the German invasion of Belgium in 1940 has began and Brussels is being bombarded She manages to make her way to the studios with Openfeld Senior.  It carries on in the passé simple and imperfect.  His mother then changes film companies and signes a contract with the brothers Openfeld and we go on in the passé simple.

Then Modiano reminds us of his present time– the moment of enunciation - he reverts to the time of enunciation and writes in the present tense and hence the passé composé and the future appear– he has found the contract that she signed. [...] I have NO problem with this at all – he has left the story and tells us what he is doing at the moment of enunciation – he is reading the contact that his mother signed that long time ago in the past.

Then back to the story about his mother [in the passé simple].  It continues in this classical style - she is due to meet the Openfeld brothers at the studios in Brussels but the German army has invaded Belgium and things become hectic.

"Elle *finit* par trouver un taxi……. et ma mère *se fraya* à grand‑peine un passage jusqu'au quai de départ du train pour Bruxelles"

Then in the next paragraph he writes

Ma mère *a senti* que quelqu'un lui touchait le bras. Elle *s'est retournée*, Openfeld Senior, coiffé d'un feutre noir.

I cannot understand why he is now using the passé composé. The train is not running and she and Openfeld get a taxi,- then back to the passé simple [narrating their various preparations] to escape from Belgium with their equipment.

Now back to the passé composé Why ?

"….*Ils ont chargé* le matériel de cinéma dans la camionnette ... Grunebaum *s'est installé* au volant [...]

Two paragraphs later [we're back to the passé simple for their arrival at a hotel. After his mother says she has to stay, and will not accompany them after all, the story switches to passé composé, starting with their reaction to her decision.]

[...]  *"Ils ne lui ont pas dit* un mot pour la retenir."

Then the rest of the actions continue in the passé composé, tracing her return to Anvers ( Antwerp) until the very end of the chapter when [she realizes she has lost her suitcase, which is stated in passé simple.]

Can anyone explain these changes from passé simple to passé composé and vice versa in the NARRATIVE? Modiano has won many prestigious literary prizes, so he is no slouch. Peut-être il y a aussi un Français ou une Française qui puisse m’aider ?

( I do not know how highlight the quotations - sorry!)
Sincerely
Wyn


----------



## Riverby

Wikipedia uses two past tenses, passé simple and passé composé, in this sentence:

_Rosso Fiorentino, qui *fut* l'élève de Pontormo au studio d'Andrea Del Sarto, *a apporté* la maniera florentine à Fontainebleau en 1530, …_

Is this correct? This thread (Post #10) advises people not to mix these two tenses. Would it be better then to replace the passé composé with the passé simple, thus:

_Rosso Fiorentino, qui *fut* l'élève de Pontormo au studio d'Andrea Del Sarto, *apporta* la maniera florentine à Fontainebleau en 1530, …_


----------



## Maître Capello

Hello Riverby,

The sentence from Wikipedia is perfectly correct and the passé composé is indeed better than the passé simple for the second verb. The first verb just states a past fact and hence the passé simple fits well (in careful writing, that is). However, the second verb describes an event that had *consequences later*. The passé composé is therefore more appropriate although the passé simple would still be possible.

In short, there are definitely cases where you can – even should – mix the two tenses!


----------



## Riverby

Thanks. But presumably being the pupil of Pontormo had later consequences too - for example, in the style of Fiorentino's work.


----------



## Maître Capello

Maybe, but those are not mentioned or implied in the sentence, even more so since the first verb is in a relative clause, contrary to the _maniera florentine_ for the second verb.


----------



## Lafille02

_Note: I realize this topic has been beat to death but despite  reading  numerous threads, I can't seem to find the exact answer to my  question.  If I happened to miss a thread covering this topic, please  kindly direct me to  it. 

_My professor has instructed us to write a fictional story from our point of view (i.e. first person). It's required that we use passé simple, imparfait, plus-que-parfait, and passé composé. I thought passé simple was the literary equivalent to passé composé, so I'm unsure how/why I would need to use them in the same story. If I use passé simple as the main tense, where can I use passé composé? Would it be appropriate to use passé composé in the dialogue? Any help would be much appreciated.


----------



## caelum

When the two are used, le passé composé regains its original, present perfect usage.

Je vis autre fois le même homme que j'ai vu chaque jour de cette semaine.


----------



## pointvirgule

Lafille02 said:


> My professor has instructed us to write a fictional story from our point of view (i.e. first person). It's required that we use passé simple, imparfait, plus-que-parfait, and passé composé.


OK, here's the four of them in a single sentence where the main tense is the simple past:

_Je m'engageai_ (passé simple)_ sur ce sentier qui m'était _(imparfait) _familier, car je l'avais souvent parcouru _(plus-que-parfait) _autrefois, à l'époque d'un bonheur que je n'ai plus jamais connu_ (passé composé)_ depuis. _

As you can see, there's a place for all those past tenses in a story, depending on the points in time when the narrated facts take place relative to the main time frame (if this poor explanation makes any sense).


----------



## Nicomon

pv.    Great sample sentence. 

As far as I'm concerned, your explanation makes a whole lot of sense.


----------



## gary17

I started reading Le Petit Prince recently and found the switching of verb tenses between passé composé and passé simple confusing. I do know that passé simple is used in formal or literary writing, but I can't find any rules on how one may incorporate these two tenses in the same text. 
For example, one paragraph describing the author's encounter with the little prince starts with this sentence using passé composé:
*J’ai sauté sur mes pieds comme si j’avais été frappé par la foudre.*

But the next paragraph, the tense immediately switches to passé simple:
*Je regardai donc cette apparition avec des yeux tout ronds d’étonnement.*

And this is just one example of the numerous verb tense switches in the book. A native French speaker once told me that passé simple implies a quick action but in the example above, _sauter_ (to jump) is a quick action as well!! I know some people would say this is a matter of style, but this switch of tenses can't be made randomly, can it?


----------



## srb62

I've been reading _Rue des Boutiques Obscures _by Modiano and have found similar examples to those you mention.  I'll copy a few of them below to show what I mean.  I have to be honest and say that even after reading the posts above I'm still not clear what the purpose of using both tenses in this way is.

For example. 'Il jeta un regard rapide autour de lui' followed by some dialogue and then 'Il m'a tendu son étui a cigarettes' 
and also
-- C'est une excellente idée, Jean, dit Sonachitzé
and
---- Oui, oui, a-t-il murmuré

Why does he change tenses like this and what is the effect?


----------



## Maître Capello

There are cases where it makes sense to mix both tenses, but in your examples, I'd just call it *poor style*. I find it particularly sloppy to constantly switch between the two tenses or to use different tenses for parallel sentence structures (e.g., _dit Sonachitzé_ vs. _a-t-il murmuré_).


----------



## srb62

Thanks for your reply.
It's possible that because I've lifted the sentences from the book, the context is removed and I've done the author an injustice. However, given that the author is accomplished and critically acclaimed I'm assuming that he employs this approach for  some reason and it's that I'm interested in (whether or not it 'works' is, of course, a matter of opinion - my French isn't good enough to know!)


----------



## Reynald

On peut lire le passage ici.
Tout le récit des actions de la scène-cadre est au passé composé, sauf ce _jeta_ et un autre verbe à la fin. Je n'y vois aucune justification grammaticale et pourtant rien ne me choque dans cette irruption d'un passé simple. D'ailleurs on n'y fait pas vraiment attention à la lecture ordinaire.

Je livre simplement une impression : Le passé composé donne dans ce passage une impression de froideur, de lenteur, de simple constat, de description neutre. Ce passé simple isolé semble même s'accorder avec la rapidité du coup d'oeil au milieu de toute cette lenteur.


----------



## srb62

Reynald,
Thank you for your reply - that's exactly the type of thing I was wondering about.I will think about what you have said and read with this in mind.


----------



## Maître Capello

I don't share Reynald's impression about the use of the passé composé. I just feel like the author used that tense instead of the passé simple to give a more "modern" style to his writing. As to the scarce use of the passé simple, I'm under the impression that the author meant to use only the passé composé but mistakenly used the passé simple for a few verbs as this tense comes so much more naturally when writing a novel. Anyway, those few uses of the passé simple look odd in a text written mainly in the passé composé. I also find it odd that the passé composé is used instead of the passé simple in a text where frequent imperfect subjunctives are found.


----------



## maryefrank

Bonjour à tous !  Je suis professeur de français en Arizona où mes élèves en troisième année lisent Le Petit Prince.  Pendant pas mal d'années, j'avais mal à comprendre moi-même pourquoi St. Exupéry n'utilise que le passé composé en Chapitre 1 et au commencement de la Chapitre 2, et puis commence a ajouter des passages au passé simple, ce qui se voit pour la première fois avec la phrase cité ci-dessous:  _Je regardai donc cette apparition... _Jusqu'à ce moment-là, le pilote est seule et le récit est simple et moderne.  Je conjecture que ce changement au passé simple évoque une certaine qualité magique, comme dans les contes d'autrefois, et marque le commencement de la relation centrale de ce conte.  Qu'est-ce que vous en pensez ?

Like Gary, I was confounded for a very long time, looking for some rule to follow.  I never could find one, where this book is concerned.  I posit that Exupéry's use of the passé simple in Le Petit Prince is meant to evoke a magical quality, like in the fables of old.  What do you think?



gary17 said:


> I started reading Le Petit Prince recently and found the switching of verb tenses between passé composé and passé simple confusing. I do know that passé simple is used in formal or literary writing, but I can't find any rules on how one may incorporate these two tenses in the same text.
> For example, one paragraph describing the author's encounter with the little prince starts with this sentence using passé composé:
> *J’ai sauté sur mes pieds comme si j’avais été frappé par la foudre.*
> 
> But the next paragraph, the tense immediately switches to passé simple:
> *Je regardai donc cette apparition avec des yeux tout ronds d’étonnement.*
> 
> And this is just one example of the numerous verb tense switches in the book. A native French speaker once told me that passé simple implies a quick action but in the example above, _sauter_ (to jump) is a quick action as well!! I know some people would say this is a matter of style, but this switch of tenses can't be made randomly, can it?





​


----------



## Maître Capello

maryefrank said:


> Je conjecture que ce changement au passé simple évoque une certaine qualité magique, comme dans les contes d'autrefois, et marque le commencement de la relation centrale de ce conte. Qu'est-ce que vous en pensez ?


Je ne crois pas ; ça me paraît assez improbable. Il s'agit à mon avis plus simplement d'un effet de style.


----------

