CC BY
13
5 f jb
aneipaxoq ‘boundless’ (Pi. O. 6.54)
Резюме: в статье обосновывается необходимость отказаться от конъектуры ansipixroi, предложенной для разбираемого стиха Кристианом Готтлобом Гейне и вошедшей во все издания Пиндара XX в. В двух рукописях (Laur. 32.37 и 32.33) мы находим вариант ansipaxroi, который следует понимать не как форму от ansipaxo^ ‘неопытный, неиспытанный’, невозможную в данном месте как по метрическим соображениям, так и с точки зрения содержания стиха, но как датив от ansipaxo<; ‘бескрайний’, отвечающий в данном контексте требованиям как метра, так и смысла. Это чтение предпочтительнее и с точки зрения чисто текстологической: становится ясным появление варианта ansipavxroi, преобладающего в рукописном предании («utrum in alterum abiturum erat»). Наконец, мы получаем возможность восстановить в тексте Пиндара звуковой повтор (...ax...ax...ax), являющийся одним из излюбленных приемов поэта. Поскольку слово ansipaxo<; ‘бескрайний’ известно также из псевдогиппократова трактата «О ветрах» (кон. V в.?), у нас есть все основания поместить форму ansipaxroi в текст Pi. O. 6.54, тем более что, как показывается в статье, современная теория индоевропейского словосложения позволяет без труда объяснить морфологическую структуру этого слова и его соотношение со словами nsipap, ansiprov и ansipo^.
Ключевые слова: древнегреческий язык, Пиндар, Pi. О. 6.54, конъектуры, ansipixroi, ansipaxroi, ansipaxo^, ansipaxo^, псевдогиппократов трактат «О ветрах».
The purpose of this note is to disprove an emendation in Pindaric text which has become standard in the course of the past century. The following text is printed for O. 6.53-54 in most modern editions:
aAX’ ev
о
KSKpunxo yap a%oivroi Paxiai t’ ev ansipixroi (Snell-Maehler )
For he (scil. baby Iamus) had been hidden in the rushes and the boundless thicket
Our main concern here is the form ancipixwi. The majority of the manuscripts offer a reading ancipavxwi which provides a suitable meaning ‘boundless’ (cf. P. 9. 35 ycvcxai 8’ a^Kaq ancipdviou ‘putting to the test her boundless valor’)1. This reading appears both
* I would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Research Council of the President of the Russian Federation (grant nr. MK-389.2011.6).
1 aneipavxo^ / anepavxo^ is derived from the verb ne(i)paiv© ‘limit, bring to
in the single representative of the Ambrosian recension (Ambr. C 222 inf.) and in most mss. of the Vatican recension. However, it is unmetrical and should therefore be dismissed: the ode is composed in dactylo-epitrite and the fifth verse of the (anti)strophe otherwise scans as - e - D w - (in Maas’ notation). In other words, the adjective modifying Paxiai is expected to have the prosodic shape w - w - , which is precisely the reason why Christian Gottlob Heyne conjectured here a form of drcsipixoq, an adjective that has the same meaning ‘boundless, limitless’ as drccipavxog (novxoq ancipixoq Od. 10.195, Hes. Th. 109; yaTav arcdpixov Hes. Th. 878; o^iAoq dnsipixoq h.Ven. 120, etc.). This emendation was adopted by nearly all subsequent editors and Paxiai t’ cv drccipixwi thus became the received text of Pindar2.
But while Heyne’s conjecture is plausible semantically and metrically, it gives no easy account of the presumed corruption: it is doubtful that the word dnsipixoq was sufficiently rare or unclear to be exposed to supersession by drcdpavxog as an explanatory gloss3. It might be worthwhile to consider the problem anew by going back to what is transmitted.
While the majority of the pre-Triclinian codices have drccipdvxwi, two closely related mss. of the Vatican recension, Laur. 32.37 and Laur. 32.33 have a different reading: dncipaxwi. At the first glance this seems to be a form of the adjective dncipaxoq (Ionic ancipnxoq) ‘without making attempt, inexperienced’, found elsewhere in Pindar (O. 9.18; N. 1.23), but impossible in this passage both for reasons of sense and meter4. But once we assume that transmitted dncipdxwi is in fact a form of a completely different adjective dncipaxoq with a meaning similar to that of dnsipwv and dnsipixoq ‘boundless’, we not only receive a metrically and semantically plausible variant, but we also get two more advantages that Heyne’s dncipixwi does not seem to offer. First, if dncipdxwi stood in the archetype, this reading would be more liable to be corrupted into dncipdvxwi attested by the majority of the tradition, whether by way of a purely paleographic error or as a scribal
an end’, compare nnpaivro ^ annpavio^ ‘unhurt’ or ^aivopai ^ a^avxo^ ‘invisible’.
2 This text was printed by Bergk, Schroder, Turyn, Bowra, Snell-Maehler and Race. The only other emendation on the record is Heinrich’s aKnpaxroi (1794: 9).
aneipavxo^ is in fact not found in Greek outside the Pindaric passage cited above, differently from its more frequent Attic pendant anepavxo^.
4 neipa© ‘make trial of, try’ is a derivative of ^ neipa ‘trial, attempt’; as in any other contract verb, the penultimate syllable in the verbal adjective of neiparo is expected to be long (cf. Attic xipnTO^, etc.).
emendation. Secondly, we are able to restore a phonic echo (BaTiai t’ cv dncipaTWi), a poetic effect of which Pindar was particularly fond (See Watkins 1995: 81-82 (P. 10.60), 98 (N. 2.1-5), 189 (O. 3.4), 364 (O. 13.64), 366 (N. 6.45)).
The crucial problem that must have prevented the editors of Pindar (at least ^ those who may have entertained the possibility of a scansion drccipaxwi) from adopting this reading in their texts is that the word drcdpdxog is otherwise unknown in Greek5. Of all the editors of Olympian 6 only August Boeckh and, following him, Tycho Mommsen6, printed the actually transmitted drccipdxwi, but their reason for doing so is untenable: Boeckh’s (1811: 378) suggestion to derive the word from *dn8ipaaxoq ‘inexpectus’ (from ncipaZ® ‘make trial of, attempt, try’) through a loss of -s- lacks the necessary linguistic sophistication7. Lexicographers and linguists alike have not been able to provide a plausible explanation for drcdpdxog8, and the implicit acceptance of Heyne’s conjecture by
5 This reading also appears in the scholia to Pi. O. 6 in Ambr. C 222 inf. and Leid. Q. 4; as is evident from the text of these scholia, the commentators thought they were dealing with a form of nepd© with a “Doric” a and did not worry about the meter, e.g. Schol. 90a ^v ouk eaxi Sianepaaai ‘impossible to pass through’ (Drachmann). Even forgetting about the meter for a moment, one sees immediately that -ei- in dneipaxroi precludes any identification with (Sia)nepd©, a denominative verb derived from adv. nepa ‘beyond, past’ (cf. dnepaxo^ ‘not to be transgressed’ Aesch. Supp. 1049). This attempt at etymologizing of course merely testifies to the bewilderment engendered by the unfamiliar word dneipaxo^, but these scholia may have also additionally discredited this reading in the eyes of the scholars.
6 From Mommsen’s comment on the verse (1864: 59) it is clear that in adopting this reading into his text he was relying solely on Boeckh’s analysis.
7 Boeckh adduces as parallels for his rule of s-loss £paxo<; : £paaxo<; ‘beloved, lovely’ and 9aupaxo<; : 9aupaaxo<; ‘wonderful’, but neither of these cases is comparable:
(1) £paaxo<; is a derivative from an -s-stem (*epa<;, cf. Aeolic £pawo<; < *eras-no- and ep©<;, -©xo<; from earlier *ep©<;, -oo<;, see Weiss 1998: 36) of the type yelaaxo^ ‘laughable’, while £paxo<; is a verbal adjective derived from an athematic verb (epapai); the same explanation is valid for £laxo<; : elaaxo^ (elaaxpe©) ‘ductile’;
(2) 9aupaxo<; is a derivative from a -men- stem (Oanpa), while 9aupaaxo<; is a verbal adjective derived from the verb OaupdZ© in which the suffixal -axis regular, cf. anouSaaxo^, ovopaaxo<;, (-)aKeuaaxo^.
8 LSJ favors a derivation of dneipaxo^ from ne(i)paiv© with a resulting meaning ‘impenetrable’ (for this rare meaning of ne(i)paiv© cf. Aesch. Choe. 56 Si’ ©x©v 9pevo<; xe Sapia<; nepaivov ‘penetrated the ears and heart of the people’), but this solution is severely compromised by the fact that the expectable deverbal adjective from ne(i)paiv© is the actually attested
Wilhelm Schulze (1892: 116n3), one of the foremost specialists in the history of Greek language of the time (and probably of all times) may have led the classical scholars to belief that the case was closed9. The reading of the Laurentiani was discarded by all subsequent editors.
We may now take stock: while one of the transmitted variants, drccipdvxwi, does not scan and is thus obviously wrong, the other one, drccipdxwi, may have a short /a/ and thus comply with the requirements of the meter, but the unique form has resisted all attempts at a plausible morphological analysis10. In the absence of such analysis, desperately sticking to the transmitted reading would clearly not be superior to emending the text.
However, Pi. O. 6.54 is not the only place in Greek literature where the word drccipaxoc; can be surmised. A form of this word is probably also found as a variant reading in the Hippocratic treatise “ncpi ^uowv” (“On Breaths”); this work has often been deemed spurious, but over the past century (ever since the publication of the Anonymous Londinensis papyrus) a consensus has emerged that this treatise is not incompatible with the doctrines and methods found in the earliest part of the Corpus and may in any event be a genuine sample of scientific prose of the 5th or 4t cent11.
At [Hp.] Flat. 3.9 Littre printed oAxdScc; xc ancipoi xw ^cycOci cc; ftyoc; Siappircxcfivxai ‘and vessels of vast bulk are tossed about’, adopting the reading ancipoi from the codex M (Marc. gr. 269); however, the other main authority, codex A (Par. gr. 2243), offers drcdpaxoi ^cycOci12. It is beyond doubt that the intended meaning
dnepavxo^ / dneipavxo^, cf. u^aivro ^ u^avxo^ ‘woven’ and the examples cited above, n. 1, in other words, in denominative verbs derived from -n-stems or -r/n- stems, the suffix -av-, itself a modification of the zero grade *-n-, does not alternate with -n- > -a-.
9 °
Schulze cited Paxiai t’ dneipixroi (“quod scripsit pro tradito dneipax© Bergkius”) in support of his view that dneipixo^ contains a reflex of the root ‘to go’ (“quod circumiri not potest”).
10 Cf. Gunther 1998: 133: “Wenn die Bildung geklart werden konnte, wurde man dneipaxroi gerne akzeptieren”.
11 Jouanna (1999: 378) dates Flat. to the last quarter of the 5th cent. Beside Menon of the “Anonymous Londinensis” (col. 5.53ff.) this treatise is referred to by the comic poet Antiphanes (4th cent.) and the early Alexandrian librarian Callimachus. See Langholf 1990.
12 Conjectures: dneipavxoi Diels (1911: 278), anlexoi Danielsson (apud Nelson 1909: 8). Diels thought that transmitted dneipaxoi is the equivalent of Ionic dneipnxoi (viz. dneipaxoi from neiparo) and the form is a scribal correction of dneipavxoi ‘unlimited’; however, it remains unclear why the author of a medical treatise (even granted that Flat. is a polished text that
here is ‘immense’, which makes the situation vastly different from that in Olympian 6 where the epithet of a bush (Pax(c)ia) can have a whole slew of different meanings. The variant ansipaxoi is clearly the lectio difficilior here, while ancipoi in codex M, a frequent word, is easily explainable as an interlinear gloss that crept in during the copying of M’s archetype13. Moreover, the reading ansipaxoi eliminates the awkward article before the dative of respect (cf. Hdt. 1.51 ^cyaBci ^cyaAouq, Pl. Prm. 144a arccipoq apiB^oq tcA^Bci)14. The reason the 19th century editors have chosen to either print arccipoi or recourse to conjectures must have been similar to the one that made the editors of Pindar adopt Heyne’s arccipixwi: presumably the editors of Flat. considered ancipaxoi to be an Attic or Doric form15 of ancipnxoq ‘inexperienced’, ‘unexplored’ which they rightly deemed unsuitable for this passage. The situation here is thus exactly the same as with the text of O. 6.54 discussed above: the reading which most textual critics would put in the text based on transmission alone is discarded because of the uncertainty of the form. However, Jacques Jouanna in his excellent Bude edition reevaluated this passage and printed ansipaxoi ^cycBci from codex A in his text of Flat16.
I have no doubt that Jouanna’s editorial decision was right and I think that at Pi. O. 6.54, too, the original truth may have come through the transmission process unscathed. It is time to bring the variant arccipaxwi back into the spotlight, since a linguistic justification for the peculiar form has now become available thanks to recent developments in the theory of Indo-European nominal composition.
The first step towards a solution of the conundrum was in fact made more than a hundred years ago by Basil Gildersleeve, who in his commentary on Olympian 6 wrote: “arccipaxoq might be to ncTpaq as rccpaxoq is to rccpaq” (1885: 177). But he did not provide any parallels or elaborate on this tentative proposal which, at least in this form, does not inspire confidence, to say the least: it is not immediately obvious that an oblique stem of an athematic noun
has some rhetorical qualities of a lecture) would employ specifically a rare poetic form of the adjective and not its frequent Attic form anepavxo^.
3 Cf. aneAei^On A : an^HaKxai M, naOrov A : KaKrov M, etc., see Nelson 1909: 65-66.
14 As pointed out by Diels 1911: 278.
15 While an Atticism would perhaps be likelier, a Doric form would in theory be not altogether surprising (for Doricisms in Corpus Hippocraticum see Schmidt 1977).
16 It should be noted that Heiberg in his CMG text, too, printed aneipaxoi, but his reasons for doing so remain uncertain.
should be identical to its form in the second member of a compound. (Moreover, as we shall see presently, such analysis is unlikely to be correct). Gildersleeve’s suggestion has therefore gone unnoticed17.
Yet, a privative formation derived from rccTpaq with a meaning ‘limitless, boundless’, e.g. arcdpwv or ancipoq, would indeed fit both passages extremely well. A linguistic forebear of rccTpaq ‘limit’ (Xenoph., Pi., Parm.)18 is still found in Homeric rccTpap, rcdpaxoq ‘id.’ (e.g. II. 8.476 xa vciaxa rcdpaB’ iK^ai Kai novxoio ‘you should go to the nethermost bounds of earth and sea’) 19. The reconstruction nom.-acc. sg. *per-ur, oblique stem *per-uen- is confirmed by the Old Indic cognates parur, parvan-, parus- ‘joint, knot, limb’2 . In Proto-Indo-European this noun belonged to the class of the so-called “heteroclitic” stems which had suffixal *-ur in the
/-s O
nominative and accusative singular, but *-uen- in oblique cases. In Old Indic this complex paradigm split into two, with parvan- and parus- functioning as two independent stems21, while in Greek the heteroclitic inflection was preserved, but the oblique stem suffix in the zero grade (*-n- or *-un-) was extended by *-t-, as is usual with this type of nouns (cf. 'uSwp, gen. ftSaxoq < *ud-n-t-os vs. Hittite uatar, gen. uitenas ‘water’ or ^nap, gen. ^naxoq < *(hx)iekw-n-t-os vs. Old Indic yakrt, gen. yaknah, Latin iecur, ie/ocineris ‘liver’, see Sihler 1995: 302-303). Now, in order to decide whether the core of Gildersleeve’s idea is correct, namely that the mysterious short -a- in arcdpaxoq is the same -a- that we find in rcdpax- ( < *perunt-, cf. *udnt-), the oblique stem of ncTpaq / ncTpap, and that arcdpaxoq is a legitimate word, formed according to the rules of the Greek grammar, we should look closely at the formation of privative compounds from athematic nouns in Greek and Proto-Indo-European.
This could be a topic of a book-length treatment, but for our present purposes we can limit ourselves to a very concise
17 This idea is echoed by Chantraine (1968-1980: 871) whose tantalizingly short formulation “bati sur le theme des cas autres que le nom.-acc. sg.” is likewise imprecise.
18 Also nepa^ (Anaximand. fr. 15.13).
19 TC£ipa<; could either be a back-formation to the oblique stem neipax- or show an effect of dissimilation of two r’s (neipap > neipa^, see Buck 1917: 24), presumably also seen in xepa^ ‘marvel’ (Hom.+ ) that likely continues *kwer-r/n- (note the oblique stem xepax- attested early enough, including the PN Teipeaio^), see Nikolaev 2010a: 190-191.
20 For a book-length treatment of the etymology and semantics of neipap and parvan- see Bergren 1975. This etymological relationship is commonly accepted nowadays, see Mayrhofer 1996: 99-100, Beekes 2010: 1163.
21 On this paradigm-split see Hoffmann 1975 who compellingly argued that paruh (the sandhi form of nom. parur < *per-ur) was reinterpreted as an allomorph of an s-stem.
presentation of basic relevant facts (See Puhvel 1953; Malzahn). If one wanted to form a privative compound from *n- ‘no, not’ and an athematic noun X with the resulting meaning ‘not having X’ (viz. a kind of a bahuvrihi possessive compound ), two strategies were available in the proto-language:
1) suffixless (“internal”) strategy: no suffixes are added to the noun used as the second member of the compound, but instead this noun changes its inflectional pattern and shows a different position of the accent and a different vowel ablaut in the suffix. Examples; Greek nax^p ‘father’ ^ drcdxwp ‘fatherless’, Old Indic udhar / udhan- ‘udder’ ^ anudhan- ‘having no udder’ (Nussbaum 1986: 92). The pair ncTpap (*perur / -n-) ‘limit’ ^ drcdpwv (*n-peruon-) ‘limitless’ belongs to this type23.
2) suffixal (“external”) strategy: the athematic noun used as the second member of the compound is extended by a suffix *-o-. Examples: Greek n8wp ‘water’ ^ avuSpoq ‘waterless’ (cf. Old Indic anudra- ‘id.’), ovo^a / ovu^a ‘name’ ^ vwvu^voq ‘nameless’24. The existence of this second way of forming privative compounds (and, generally, bahuvrihi compounds) has been contested for a long time, notably, by Ferdinand Sommer (in several influential articles and then a monograph on Greek compounds25), but can now be considered established beyond doubt26.
22 The use of “possessive” may appear confusing in a discussion of privative formations, but it is important to bear in mind that the meaning of a possessive compound (bahuvrihi) is ‘having X which is Y’; thus e.g. noAuneiprov (h. Cer. 296) literally means ‘having boundaries that are many’ (viz. ‘with many boundaries’), while dneiprov literally means ‘having boundaries that are not’ (viz. ‘with no boundaries, limitless’).
23 Cf. Old Indic aparvan- ‘jointless’ RV 4.19.3 (said about the serpent Vrtra).
24 °
Note that while in “internally” derived second members of a compound the heteroclitic nouns use their -n-stem (*perur / -n- ^ *n-peruOn-), “externally” derived second members of compounds use the -r-stem (*uodr / -n—> *n-udr-o-), see Weiss 1994: 95.
See Sommer 1948: 99-159. Thanks to the publication of a well-researched biography of Swiss Hittitologist Emil Orgetorix Forrer (Oberheid 2007) it has now become clear that Sommer’s personal feud with this talented but apparently obnoxious scholar was the only reason that triggered his series of polemical writings about Greek compounds (as pointed out by Malzahn 2010: 184n3): in his efforts to disprove Forrer’s theory about Bronze Age contacts between the Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite kingdom (now generally accepted, see e.g. Watkins 1986: 45-62; Kazansky
As a result, we sometimes find in Greek pairs of suffixed and suffixless privative compounds with the same meaning. This situation may be conveniently illustrated with derivatives from -men-stems (which, importantly, share with the heteroclitic -r/n- nouns the property of having an oblique stem in -(p)ax- < *-n-t-): aipa ‘blood’ ( < *seh2i-mn)27
^ (1) avaipwv ‘bloodless’ (II. 5.342+) (< *seh2i-mon-)
^ (2) avaipoq ‘bloodless’ (Pl. Ti. 70c+) (< *seh2i-mn-o-) The development of expectable *avaipvoq to avaipoq follows a tendency to avoid a sequence -mn- preceded by another non-syllabic element (in this case, a yod in the diphthong -ai-), observed already by Johannes Schmidt (1895: 87-159) 8. The pattern aipa ^ avaipoq, ovupa ^ avwvupoq (Hom.+, beside vwvupvoq cited above), ancppa ^ aarccppoq must have been sturdy enough to invite analogical creations with what appears to be a “truncation” of the base suffix: one such creation is ancipoq, formed to ncTpap instead of *ancpupoq uel sim29.
It can easily be seen that these phonetic changes did not facilitate the preservation of morphological transparency and it is understandable that speakers availed themselves of another suffix, namely, *-to- which was used in bahuvrihi compounds already in the protolanguage (cf. Greek aAq ‘salt’ ^ avaAxoq ‘not salted’, Old Indic ap- ‘water’ ^ anapta- ‘waterless’, Avestan ksrsp- ‘body’ ^
1997: 189-193; Hajnal 2003 and Hawkins 2010: 217-8), Sommer strove to demonstrate that the PN AAe^avSpo<; (Alaksandus in Hittite sources) could not be a genuine Greek compound, precisely because an athematic noun av^p in a compound of this type should have appeared as -'nvrop, formed according to the suffixless (“internal”) strategy (cf. nax^p ^ anaxrop, av^p ^ av^vrop^ © T8Kva on yivexai Hsch.; ‘defending men’ is a verbal governing compound, but this entire class goes back to bahuvrihis).
6 Less clear is the situation with *-i-: this suffix is not used in Old Indic bahuvrihis and in Greek we only have one example (*&Ak- ‘strength’ (a^Ki tc£tcoi9©<; Il. 5.299) ^ ava^Ki^ ‘without strength’), but in Latin we find a productive pattern barbatus ‘bearded’ : imberbis ‘beardless’.
7 The reconstruction *seh2i-mn is based on the assumption that aipa is cognate with Old High German seim ‘virgin honey’, Welsh hufen ‘cream’, see Weiss 1998: 55-56n.66; the same reconstruction, but a different root connection (to *seh2i- ‘bind’) was proposed by Janda 2005: 46-47.
28 See recently Nussbaum 2010.
9Q
aneipo^ thus does not have to be traced back to *n-per-io-, derivationally unrelated to the *-r/n- stem (Schulze 1892: 116n3), or a “thematized” version of aneiprov in the unclear formulation of Chantraine (1968-1980: 871).
30
hukdrgpta- ‘having a beautiful body’) . The use of *-to- was advantageous since it allowed preserving the oblique stem in *-mn-and the resulting sequence -^axo- was easier to relate to the base word in -^a than the string -^o- (as in avaipoq). This has led to the creation of a third type of privative compounds with a -men-stem as the second member: ai^a ‘blood’
^ dvai^axoc; ‘bloodless’ (Aesch. Eum. 302+) ( < *seh2i-mn-to-) Similarly:
%p^a ‘property’ ( < *ghrehrmn)
^ (1) axp^wv ‘having no property’ ( < *n-ghrehrmon-)
(Sol. 13.41, Pi. Fr.218; Eur. Med. 461) ^ (2) dxp^axoc; ‘having no property’ ( < *n-ghrehi-mn-to-) (Hdt. 1.89, Arist. Pol. 1271b16, Aesch. Pers. 167) Or, to take a word with a meaning similar to that of ncTpap: xcp^a ‘limit’ ( < *ter-mn)
^ (1) dxcp^wv ‘having no bound’ ( < *n-ter-mon-)
(Aesch. Eu. 634; Eur. Hec. 926) ^ (2) *dxcp^axoc; ‘having no bound’ ( < *n-ter-mn-to-)
^ dxcp^dxioxoc; ‘id.’ (Gal. 19.472, dBc^cAiwxoc; Hsch.)31
We have thus seen that there is ample evidence for the coexistence of synonymous compounds made from stems with the suffix -men- ending in either -^wv (“internal” type) or -^(v)oc; (“external” type). We have also seen how the type in -^axoq came into being. The -men-stems were chosen to illustrate the rules of compound forming because of the similarity of their morphological profile to that of the heteroclitic -r/n- stems: while in historical Greek both
32
stem types have an oblique stem in -ax- / -ox- < *-n-t- , in proto-Greek the oblique stem of both classes ended in *-n (before vowels) or *-n (before consonants)33. We have already seen above that -r/n-
30 The use of *-to- in compounds is certainly secondary: in the protolanguage this suffix was used to form possessive adjectives (Greek Oaupaxot; ‘wonderful’, Latin togatus, ansatus, honestus, Umbrian hostatu, Lithuanian raguotas ‘horned’) and its extension to possessive compounds which likewise could be employed in attributive function is not surprising. Nevertheless, this process of analogical expansion can safely be dated to late Indo-European and the situation was clearly inherited into Proto-Greek.
31 In some cases an original formation in -paxo<; ( < *-mn-to-) is ousted by yet another synonymous formation, a verbal adjective from a verb in -aiv®, e.g. rcnpa ‘harm’ ^ (1) an^prov ‘without harm’; (2) nnpaiv® ‘I harm’ ^ an^pavxo^ ‘unharmed’.
32 Already in Mycenaean, cf. a-re-pa-te = aAei^axi, a-mo-ta = appaxa, etc.
33 A pair of doublets of the same type as avaip®v : avaipaxo^ is attested for another noun with alternating stems that had an oblique in *-n-, namely,
stems did not differ from the -men-stems when they were used as compound second members without a suffix (“internal” type: drcdpwv, dvaipwv); we have every reason to believe that -r/n- stems would not pattern any differently in the suffixed (“external”) type either and thus drcdpaxoq ‘boundless’ appears in theory just as well formed as dvaipaxoq ‘bloodless’.
It is important to emphasize that the examples listed above (dvaipaxoq, dxp'npaxoq) contain the same suffixal -to- as avaAxoq ‘not salted’, dycpaoxoq ‘not having a gift of honor’, dnupywxoq ‘not girt with towers’, drcupraxoq ‘not exposed to fire’ and other words that never had oblique stems ending in -x (there is no *aAx- ‘salt’, *ycpaox- ‘honor’, etc.). The similarity between the oblique stem nc(i)pax- and our drcdpaxoq signaled by Gildersleeve and Chantraine is therefore fallacious.
But is there any parallel to presumed *dncipaxoq coexisting with drcdpwv? Compounds ending in -xoq, -xov made from stems in -r/nare indeed hard to find; however, there is now at least one example. The rare Homeric word ddaxoq has recently been interpreted as a reflex of the Indo-European word for ‘sun’: in a recent publication I argued that this privative compound goes back to *ahauato- < *nseh2unto- ‘deprived of sun’, a meaning that fits the passage Il. 18.271 (aypci vvv poi opoooov ddaxov Sxuyoq v8wp “now swear to me by the sunless water of the Styx”) (Nikolaev 2010b: 72-123). Now, as a compound derived from a heteroclitic stem *seh2ul, gen. sg. *sh2uens (Old Indic svar, Avestan huuard, gen.sg. xvdng, English sun) the form *n-seh2un-to- > ddaxoq with a compositional suffix *-to- provides a welcome parallel to the presumed *n-perun-to- > drcdpaxoq from *perur / -n-.
Based on the results of the preceding discussion, we can safely set up the following system of privative compounds from ncTpap / ncTpaq:
rccTpap ‘limit’ ( < *perur / -n-)
^ (1) drcsipwv ‘limitless’ ( < *n-peruon-)
^ (2) *aperuros uel sim. ( < *n-perur-o-)
replaced by ancipoq ‘limitless’, back-formed to drcsipwv on analogy to dvaipwv : avaiLioq, etc.
^ (3) drcdpaxoq ‘limitless’ ( < *n-perun-to-)l.
on^, ouaxo<; ‘ear’, for which we find in Mycenaean both a-no-we ‘without handles’ and a-no-wo-to ‘id.’ (cf. dvonaxo^ Theoc. Ep. 4.3).
34 The form with -ei- in Pindar could be an epic reminiscence (cf. dno neipdxrov Alc. Z 21 Voigt) or a true result of compensatory lengthening with a “mild Doric” kind of treatment, cf. Konpa O. 13.65 (*korua) or yonvaaiv I. 2.26 (*gonuat-).
As a result of this combined application of textual criticism and historical linguistics we can now conclude that arcdpaxoq ‘boundless’ is a real Greek word and there are no reasons not to promote the reading dncipaxwi at Pi. O. 6.54 from the apparatus to the main text. To paraphrase Bruno Snell, whose edition of Pindar was cited in the beginning of this paper, this is one of the cases where “Textkritik ohne Sprachwissenschaft ein nichtiges Spiel bleibt”35.
References
Beekes 2010 - Beekes R. S. P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Bergren 1975 - Bergren A. L. T. The etymology and usage of neipap in early Greek poetry. New York: American Philological Association. Bolling 1955 - Bolling G. M. Ionic Forms in Homer // Language. Vol. 31/2. P. 223-231.
Buck 1917 - Buck C. D. Studies in Greek Noun-Formation: Dental Terminations I // Classical Philology. Vol. 12/1. P. 21-29.
Chantraine 1968-1980 - Chantraine P. Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.
Diels 1911 - Diels H. Hippokratische Forschungen. II-III // Hermes. Bd. 46/2. S. 261-285.
Gildersleeve 1885 - Gildersleeve B. L. Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Gunther 1998 - Gunther H.-C. Ein neuer metrischer Traktat und das Stu-dium der pindarischen Metrik in der Philologie der Palaologenzeit. Leiden: Brill. (Mnemosyne, suppl. 180).
Hajnal 2003 — Hajnal I. Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht: die Struktur einer Argumentation. Innsbruck.
Hawkins 2010 — Hawkins S. Greek and the Languages of Asia Minor to the Classical Period // A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language / Ed. by E. J. Bakker. Malden, MA: Blackwell. P. 213—227.
Heinrich 1794 - Heinrich C. F. Observationes in auctores veteres. Particula prima. Hannover: Sumtibus C. Ritscheri.
Hoffmann 1975 - Hoffmann K. Ved. dhanus und parus // Aufsatze zur Indoiranistik / Hrsg. von J. Narten. Bd. 2. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. S. 327-337.
Janda 2005 - Janda M. Elysion: Entstehung und Entwicklung der griechischen Religion. Innsbruck.
Jouanna 1999 - Jouanna J. Hippocrates / Trans. by M. B. DeBevoise.
Baltimore / London: John Hopkins University Press.
Kazansky 1997— Kazansky N. N. Les noms myceniens dans les textes hittites // Emerita. 1997. T. 65/2. P. 189—193.
Langholf 1990 - Langholf V. L’air (pneuma) et les maladies // La Maladie et les maladies dans la Collection hippocratique. Actes du VIe Colloque International Hippocratique (Quebec du 28 septembre au 3 octobre
35 Quoted (in slightly different wording) by Bolling 1955: 230 and West 2000 [2007]: xxi.
r
1987) / Ed. Potter P., G. Maloney and J. Desautels. Quebec: Editions du Sphinx. P. 339-359.
Malzahn 2010 - Malzahn M. All Indo-European compounds are derived from a common origin: New evidence for a Darwinian view of IE nominal compounding // Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference / Ed. by S. W. Jamison, H. C. Melchert and B. Vine. Bremen: Hempen. P. 183-187.
Malzahn (forthcoming) - Malzahn M. Nominal Compounding // Handbook of Indo-European Studies // Ed. by A. Garrett and M. Weiss.
Mayrhofer 1996 - Mayrhofer M. Etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindo-arischen. Bd. 2. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Mommsen 1864 - Mommsen T. Supplementum adnotationis criticae ad Pindari Olympias. Berlin: Weidmann.
Nelson 1909 - Nelson A. Die Hippokratische Schrift nspi 9ua®v: Text und Studien. Uppsala : Almqvist & Wilksells.
Nikolaev 2010a - Nikolaev A. Time to gather stones together: Greek Aaa<; and its Indo-European background // Proceedings of the 21 st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference / Ed. by S. W. Jamison, H. C. Melchert and B. Vine. Bremen: Hempen. P. 189-206.
Nikolaev 2010b - Николаев А. С. Исследования по праиндоевропей-ской именной морфологии. СПб.: Наука.
Nussbaum 1986 - Nussbaum A. J. Head and Horn in Indo-European: the Words for “Horn”, “Head” and “Hornet”. Berlin / New York.
Nussbaum 2010 - Nussbaum A. J. PIE -Cmn- and Greek xpav^ ‘clear’ // Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday / Ed. by R. Kim, N. Oettinger, E. Rieken and M. Weiss. Ann Arbor / New York: Beech Stave Press. P. 269-277.
Oberheid 2007 - Oberheid R. Emil O. Forrer und die Anfange der Hethitologie. Berlin / New York.
Puhvel 1953 - Puhvel J. Indo-European negative composition // Language. Vol. 29/1. P. 14-25.
Schmidt 1895 - Schmidt J. Kritik der Sonantentheorie: eine sprachwissen-schaftliche Untersuchung. Weimar: Bohlau.
Schmidt 1977 - Schmidt V. Dorismen im Corpus Hippocraticum // Corpus Hippocraticum. Actes du Colloque Hippocratique de Mons (22-26 Sept. 1975) / Ed. R. Joly. [Mons]: Universite de Mons. S. 49-64.
Sihler 1995 - Sihler A. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sommer 1948 - Sommer F. Zur Geschichte der griechischen Nominal-komposita. Mtinchen: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen-schaften. (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., n. F. 27).
Watkins 1986 - Watkins C. The language of the Trojans // Troy and the Trojan War: a symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984 / Ed. M. J. Mellink. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr University Press. P. 45-62.
Watkins 1995 - Watkins C. How to Kill a Dragon in Indo-European. Oxford University Press.
Weiss 1994 - Weiss M. On the non-verbal origin of the Greek verb v^eiv ‘to be sober’ // Historische Sprachforschung. Vol. 107. P. 91-98.
Weiss 1998 - Weiss M. Erotica: on the prehistory of Greek desire // Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Vol. 98. P. 31-61.
West 2007 — West M. L. Forward into the past: Acceptance speech for the Balzan prize in Classical Antiquity, 2000 // Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday / Ed. by P. J. Finglass, C. Collard and N. J. Richardson. Oxford University Press. P. xx-xxviii.
Editions cited:
Pindari carmina cum lectionis varietate et adnotationibus: accedunt internre-tatio Latina emendiator, scholia, et fragmenta / Ed. C. G. Heyne. 2n ed. London: G. et W. B. Whittaker, 1824.
Pindari carmina / Ed. C. I. T. Mommsen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1864.
Poetae lyrici Graeci / Ed. Th. Bergk. Vol. 1: Pindar. 4th ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1878. (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana).
Pindari carmina cum fragmentis selectis / Ed. O. Schroeder. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1930. (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana).
Pindari carmina cum fragmentis / Ed. A. Turyn. Cracow: Academia Polona Litterarum et Scientiarum, 1948.
Pindar. Carmina cum fragmentis / Ed. C. M. Bowra. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis).
Pindari carmina cum fragmentis / Ed. B. Snell, rev. H. Maehler. Leipzig: Teubner; Munich: Saur, 1997-2002. (Bibliotheca scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana).
Pindar. Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes / Ed. and trans. by W. H. Race. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. (The Loeb Classical Library 485).
Hippocrates. Oeuvres completes / Ed. E. Littre. T. 6, 88-117. Paris: J. B. Balliere, 1849.
Hippocratis Opera / Ed. I. L. Heiberg. (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum I. 1.)
Leipzig: Teubner, 1927.
Hippocrates / Ed. W. H. S. Jones. Vol. 2, 219-254. Cambridge, Mass., 1959.
(Loeb Classical Series 148).
Hippocrate / Ed. J. Jouanna. T. 5/1, 7-164. Paris: Les belles letters, 1988.
Summary
A. S. Nikolaev. ansipazog ‘boundless’ (Pi. O. 6.54)
It is argued that Heyne’s emendation dneipixroi adopted in all modern editions of Pindar is unnecessary. The variant dneipaxroi transmitted in two mss. of the Vatican recension (Laur. 32.37, 32.33) should be interpreted not as a form of dneipaxo^ ‘inexperienced’, but as a form of dneipaxo^ ‘boundless’ (cf. [Hp.] Flat. 3.9 Jouanna): this reading provides the required sense and meter, gives an easy account of the corrupted variant dneipavxroi and allows restoring a phonic echo in Pindar’s text. Thanks to the recent progress in our understanding of nominal composition in Greek and Indo-European it has now become possible to offer a linguistic explanation of the form dneipaxo^ and clarify its relation to neipap, dneiprov and aneipo^.
