CC BY
19
Indogermanische Deikter-SPRACHE:
«Showing Songs» in Greek And Indo-European*
Резюме: в статье исследуется необычное употребление глагола ôsÎKVupa в древнегреческой хоровой лирике: у Алкмана, Пиндара и Бакхилида мы находим этот глагол в значении ‘исполнять (песню)’, ‘славить (в песне)’ (ôsî^ai yàpupa, p,éAoç, apsx^v). Это употребление находит полную параллель в Ригведе, где родственный глагольный корень dis- сходным образом употребляется с существительными stomam и nâmaüktim в значении ‘воздавать (хвалу в гимне)’, ‘славить’. Почти все прочие случаи употребления dis- в Ригведе (а также dis- в Авесте) тоже связаны с профессиональной деятельностью поэта, хотя и несут, по сути, обратный смысл: этот глагол употребляется в пассажах, где речь идет о воздаянии, которое поэт получает от богов или своих земных покровителей в награду за свое творчество. Таким образом, корень *deik- в поэтическом языке праиндоев-ропейцев описывал взаимные отношения между поэтом и его благодетелями (‘подносить славословие’, ‘ниспосылать дары’). Это комплексное значение легко выводимо из более привычной семантики реконструированного корня *deik- ‘показать’ (т. е. ‘сделать так, чтобы предмет Х оказался в поле зрения Y’). Предлагаемый в статье анализ позволяет не только разрешить старый вопрос о значении эпитета apiôsÎKsxoç (‘славнейший’), но и поставить вопрос о древности значения ‘говорить’ у италийских и германских рефлексов корня *deik- (традиционно объясняемого как позднейшее развитие, обусловленное употреблением *deik- в языке права). Предположив, что корень *deik- имел значение ‘славить’ в поэтическом языке праиндоевропейцев, мы оказываемся в состоянии возвести к этому же корню хетт. tekri-, для которого на основании недавно опубликованного текста может быть предложено значение ‘брань’ или ‘дурная слава’.
Ключевые слова: Алкман, Пиндар, Бакхилид, Ригведа, Авеста, хеттский язык, индоевропейская поэтика, поэтический язык, dänastuti, этимология.
1. We start with a crux in choral lyric.
1.1. Alcman 59 (b) 3 Davies ( = 149 Calame):
TOÙTO paôsiàv sôsi^s Mrooàv ôfàpov pâKaipa napoévrov a ^avOà Msyaloaxpâxa1
* 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 Transmitted via Ath. 13.601a, where cod. A has xonO’ aSeiav Mouaav eSei^e; the word order adopted in modern editions was first suggested by Wilamowitz who sought to restore a catalectic iambic trimeter.
The yellow haired Megalostrata, blessed among girls,
eSei^e (Campbell: displayed) this gift of the sweet Muses2
Megalostrata, who is only known from this fragment, was in all likelihood the choregos in a partheneion from which these verses are quoted by Athenaeus (13.601a). Since the expression Swpov Mwoav is a usual kenning for ‘music’ or ‘poetry’3, we have to ask ourselves what exactly cSci^c Mwoav Swpov means in the present context. One possibility would be to interpret these lines as reflecting the pedagogical function of the lyric chorus4: Megalostrata could be both leading the procession and instructing the younger members of the chorus and as such she could «show» or «reveal» to the choreuts the gift of the Muses. But Archytas5, the source of Athenaeus for this passage, explicitly says that Megalostrata was a poet (and apparently an excellent conversationalist, viz. a master of the spoken word):
Aeyei Se Kai ©<; Meyaloaxpaxn? on p,expi©<; epaaOei; noi^xpia^ p,ev
ouan<;, Suva^evn? Se Kai Sia x^v opaliav xou^ epaaxa<; npoaelKnaaaOai He also says that he ( = Alcman) fell in passionate love with Megalostrata
who was a poetess capable of attracting lovers by her conversation
It is not immediately clear how much trust we should vest into this testimony. On the one hand, the idea of Alcman’s fatal attraction to Megalostrata is almost certainly either Archytas’ or Chamaeleon’s6 own invention, possibly based on a misinterpretation of Alcm. 59 (a) Davies ( = 148 Calame)7. But on the other hand, it is far from being clear why
2 Here and below Loeb translations have been used.
Cf. Archil. 1.2 (Kai Mouaérov èpaxov ôropov èniaxa^evoç «and skilled in the lovely gift of the Muses»), Hes. Th. 103 (xa%é©ç ôè napéxpane ôropa Oeàrov «for quickly the gifts of the goddesses have turned it (scil. K^ôea) aside»), Sol. 13.51 West (aÀXoç OÀupniàôœv Mouaérov nàpa ôropa ôiôa%9eiç «and another man is taught the gifts of the Olympian Muses»).
4 E. g. Aloni 1994: 88 n. 120 (trans.: «insegno»). On the pedagogical function of chorêgos and/or the poet see Calame 2001: 221-244.
5 Either Archytas of Tarentum, the famous Pythagorean philosopher, or Archytas of Mytilene, a musician known from D. S. 8.83.
6 Fr. 25 Wehrli: Athenaeus quotes (or paraphrases) Archytas from
Chamaeleon’s biography of Alcman (œç Xap,aile©v). The peripatetic
Chamaeleon seems to have had a keen interest in anecdotes about the poets’ private lives and there are reasons to believe that he invented some of the biographical details in his treatises based on his analysis of the poet’s own work (see Podlecki 1969: 120-124; Momigliano 1971: 80).
Eproç p,e ônnxe Knnpiôoç péraxi | yÀuKÙç Kaxeip©v Kapôiav iaivei.
Archytas would need to fabricate a story that Megalostrata, one of Alcman’s many lovers according to his presentation, was a poet8.
The possibility thus remains open that Megalostrata was described by Alcman as a fellow poet who performed together with the chorus (Sappho comes to mind), in which case cSci^c Mwoav Swpov would refer to either her performance or her composition of poetry and music. Especially in the latter case this would be a highly unusual use of the verb SciKvn^i - and yet, there are parallels, including in Alcman himself.
1.2. Alcman 4 fr. 1. 4-8 Davies (= 57 Calame):
aau]paaxa S’ avO[ yapnpaxa paAaaKa [ veo%p’ eSei^av xepn[ noiKiAa 9.[.]pa[.].ar[
0au]paaxa Lobel, oauj^aoxa Page; dv0[pronoig dub. Lobel, Calame sSi^av P. Oxy 2388 fr.1 : sSsi^av Lobel : ¿SiSa^av Calame9 and wonderful soft utterances they eSei^av (Campbell: revealed) new to men ... delight ... intricate
Lobel’s tentative reading 0au]^aaxa av0[pwnoiq in l. 4 looks extremely compelling and together with noiKiAa (l. 8) makes it virtually certain that yapn^axa ^aAaaKa means here not ‘soft sounds’, but rather ‘soft songs’ 0. Parallels for the use of ^a^(0)aKoq cited by Calame (1983: 423-4) lend additional support to this interpretation, compare especially Pi. N. 9.48-49:
veoOaA^; S’ an^exai palOaKa viKa^opia anv aoiSa victory increases with new bloom to the accompaniment of gentle song
It appears that the poem contained some discussion of poetic production.
1.3. Pi. I. 8.47 (Snell-Maehler8)
Kai veapav eSei^av ao^rov axopax’ aneipoiaiv apexav AxiAeo;
8 Note Marzullo 1964 who argues that Alcman specifically refers to Megalostrata as a performer and not as a fellow poet.
9 Against Calame’s emendation Davies 1986 and Maehler 1997: 317n.1.
10 LSJ9 cites Aesch. Eum. 569 as the prima facie evidence for the meaning ‘sound’, but y^pupa might here just as well be translated ‘song (of the trumpet)’ (TupanviK^ | aaAniy^ ... nnepxovov y^pupa ^aivex© axpax© «Let the Tyrrhenian trumpet send forth its loud song to the crowd!»). Likewise, in Eur. fr. 627 Kannicht ‘(oracular) verses’ is the most likely meaning (eiai<v> yap eiai Si^Oepai peAeyypa^ei; | noAArov yepouaai Ao^iou ynpupaxrov).
And the voices of the wise eSei^av (Race: made known, Farnell: revealed)
the youthful excellence of Achilles to those who had been unaware of it
One tradition of interpreting this passage has been to assume a reference to a prophecy made by certain sages soon after Achilles’ birth about his future excellence and concerning the fact that Troy could not be taken without him (Farnell 1930: 230; Thummer 1968: II 137). (The use of SciKVupi in this case would not be surprising). But this interpretation is unlikely: describing someone who expects to receive an oracle or a prophecy as ignorant (ancipoq) about its content would be strange to say the least11. Rather, as was seen already by Dissen, we find here the familiar topos of Achilles’ kAco^ preserved through the medium of song (Dissen 1821: 547; Wilamowitz-Mollendorff 1922: 199-200; Carey 1981: 200). Pindar’s oo^oi are poets of earlier times, ancipoi refers to their audience and the verb cSci^av is thus, once again, applied to poetic activity. The question is what activity exactly is described by cSci^av: did the poets merely «demonstrate» Achilles’ valor or they praised it in song? (Taccone 1934: 287 «laudarono», Lattimore 1976: 157: «published»).
1.4. The final passage illustrating the use of SciKVupi that we are interested in comes from Bacchylides:
Bacch. fr. 15 (Maehler)
Ou% eSpa<; epyov otiS’ apPoAa^, aAM xpuaaiyiSo^ Ixrovia^
%p^ nap’ euSaiSalov vaov ¿1-Oovxa^ a^pov ti Sei^ai 4 psXog suppl. Blass This is no time for sitting still or tarrying, but we must go to the richly-built temple of Itonia of the golden aegis
and Sei^ai (Campbell: display; Jebb: show forth) a delicate (song / dance)
The critical final iambus is missing from the passage as quoted by Dion. Hal. Comp. 2512. Even though aPpov ti alone would not be totally
11 This was noticed by Radt 1972: 198 («8, 47f. bezieht Th[ummer] oo^rov oxopax’ auf «prophetisches Lob an der Wiege», was schon durch aneipoioiv ausgeschlossen ist»); I hope I understand the reasons behind Radt’s objection correctly.
12 A grammarian quotes the first line of the fragment to illustrate what he calls a «cretic meter» (Analecta Gramm. Keil 7.21); the second and third line scan as -w — w w w - w - (with a resolved cretic in the second foot: «first paeon») and -w — w — w -, resp.
awkward as the object of the verb, the supplement will still likely have to be governed by the verb and Blass’ conjecture pcloc; is very attractive: we know from other sources that cite the beginning of this poem that it was a hyporcheme13, i.e. a dance-song (to pct’ opx^ocwc; aSopcvov pcloc; in Proclus’ definition, Procl. Chr. 320b33). The theme of the poem thus appears to be a ritual performance at Athena’s altar, possibly accompanying a sacrifice. Despite the lacuna at the end this passage constitutes perhaps the most important piece of evidence for a very special use of SciKvupi in choral lyric where the agent of the verb is a poet and the object is a song.
1.5. The passages from Alcman, Pindar and Bacchylides just discussed can surely be interpreted in one or another way with a fair amount of good will starting with more familiar meanings of SciKvupi (‘display’, ‘show’, ‘reveal’, etc.). But there is an alternative: we can adopt a unitary translation for the forms of SciKvupi in all four passages, namely, ‘sing’, ‘praise (in song)’, assuming that this peculiar use is a lexical archaism from the distant past preserved in choral lyric14. In fact, the etymology of the verb supports this view: SciKvupi and its cognates in Indo-Iranian, Italic and Germanic show a panoply of meanings that can nonetheless be all subsumed under a common heading, established in Tichy’s classic article (1977), ‘to bring something that one sees oneself to the optical notice of another through verbal or nonverbal means’. From here it is easy to get to «offer (a song)» which is, of course, exactly what professional poets in Ancient Greece did15.
2. While this hypothesis may initially seem to be defying belief, it appears to be strongly supported by comparative data from Indo-Iranian poetry: the interesting usage of SciKvupi in choral lyric finds a close and hitherto unnoticed parallel in Vedic, where the cognate verbal root dis-(pres. dides- / didis-, disa-, aor. diks-) likewise denotes an offering of a song:
RV 10.92.9ab
stomam vo adya rudraya sikvase ksayddvirdya namasd didistana
Today you should dis- (ipv.; Geldner: zeiget) your song of praise
to skillful Rudra, the ruler of men
13 Athen. 14.30 (3:393.8 Kaibel); Analecta Gramm. as above.
14 More such cases have been recently discussed by Barnes (2011).
15 It is unclear to me at the moment whether the interpretation of the following much-discussed passage from Theognidea is affected by my arguments: Theogn. 769-772
Xp^ Mouorov Oepanovxa Kai ayyelov, ei ti nepiooov eiSein, oo^in? p^ ^öovepov TeleOeiv, alia Ta pev prooöai, Ta Se SeiKvnvai, alia Se noieiv Ti o^iv xp^onTai ponvo? enioTapevo?;
See the discussion and references in Ford 1985; Woodbury 1991; Bagordo 2000.
RV 5.43.9
pra tavyaso stomam nâmaüktim turasya aham püsna utâ vâyor adiksi
ya ràdhasà coditàrà matinam ya vâjasya dravinoda utâ tmân
I dis-ed (Geldner: habe bestimmt) this homage
to mightiest, victorious Pusan and to Vayu,
who by their generosity inspire hymns / thoughts,
and of themselves are givers of reward
It is significant that in padas c-d the poet emphasizes the reciprocity of gift-giving: in return for his song of reverence (nâmas-) he expects a reward (vaja-) from the gods. A translation ‘offer’ would not be out of place in this context.
With these two examples of dis- used in the meaning ‘offer’ we may compare the intensive dédis-16. Normally this stem is used in the middle and means ‘to show, to display’, referring to gods’ manifestation of their deeds and valor, but there is one instance of a non-reflexive use of the intensive stem which is construed precisely with a word denoting the poet’s own production:
RV 8.74.15
satyâm it tvâ mahenadi pârusny âva dedisam ném âpo asvadatarah sâvisthâd asti martyah
The truth I ava dis- (Geldner: versichere) to you, Parusni, the great river,
0 waters, no mortal is there who gives more horses than Savistha gives
Together with two preceding stanzas this final stanza of the hymn constitutes a danastuti, the «praise of the gift», where one may expect the poet to dwell on the plentiful rewards he expects to obtain from his patron in exchange for his poetry. Now, assuming that satyâm is used here in its literal meaning ‘truth’ and satyâm tva âva dedisam means «auf die Wahrheit weise ich dich (immer wieder) hin» (K. Hoffmann17), one wonders whether this line serves as an efficient foil to the immediately following praise of the generous benefactor. One might expect the poet to emphasize his impressive achievement: compare the transition from the hymn proper to danastuti in two following passages:
RV 5.18.3
tam vo dirghayusocisam gira huve maghonâm aristo yésâm ratho vy àsvadàvann lyate
1 invoke this your (Agni), whose shining has a long life,
(on behalf of) the generous patrons,
whose car hither and thither goes unharmed,
O giver of steeds!
16 See Schaefer 1994: 132-4 for a discussion of the forms.
17
Hoffmann 1967: 253 n. 281; dedisam is 1 sg. pres. inj. or subj., see Schaefer 1994: 42.
RV 5.33.6
paprksenyam indra tve hy ¿jo nrmnani ca nrtamano amartah
sa na enim vasavano rayim dah prarya stuse tuvimaghasya danam
Overflowing strength is in you, Indra,
you are the immortal performer of heroic exploits.
Give us, Lord of treasure, splendid riches!
I will praise the gift of a very generous patron.
In both cases the poet’s request for gift and his praise of his generous benefactors is dovetailed with either an actual act of a sacrifice or a praise of a god (RV 5.33.6) or a description of it (RV 5.18.3).
As an alternative, L. Renou suggested that satyam ava dis- is synonymous with satyam vad- and means «I certify under oath», viz. «I swear to you, Parusni, that there is no mortal, etc.» (Renou 1964: 157). And yet, another interpretation is possible: satyam here may refer to the truth of the poetic word, as it does elsewhere, compare the following Rigvedic verse:
RV 1.152.2b
saty¿ mantrah kavisasta rghavan
true is the powerful formula pronounced by the poet18
We may therefore assume that the object of dis- in RV 8.74.15b may be understood as giras ‘songs of praise’ uel sim. which the poet-sacrificer is offering to the gods on behalf of his patron and for which, just as in RV 5.43.9cd above, the poet is expecting a reward from his generous employer. We will revisit this stanza at the end of the next section.
3. The interpretation of (ava) dis- in these three Vedic passages as ‘offer’ becomes more than just a guess in view of the fact that the verb dis- is used not only in contexts where poet-sacrificer is offering his praise to the gods, but also in the reverse type of situations when the gods or the patron are remunerating the poet:
a) POETsubj dis- PRAISEobj to GOD / PATRON (e.g. RV 10.92.9 above)
b) PATRON / GODsubj dis- REWARDobj to POET
18
For a discussion of this verse and generally of the «Poet’s Truth» see Watkins 1995: 85-93, esp. 88.
These situations represent different aspects of the same relationship that can be schematically represented as follows (Source of the picture: Hintze 2004: 28):
Thanks to the work of Bader, Campanile, Jamison, Watkins and others we have now gained a much better understanding of the giftexchange based relationship between poet-sacrificer and his patron, in which the poet by his art is able to invite deities to the sacrifice and thus procure riches for his patron, who then remunerates the poet. A simpler situation involved just two parties, the poet and the patron: the former provides fame and honor to the patron, who in turn rewards him richly (See Watkins 1995: 68-84; Hintze 2004).
Either way, the poet’s reward is the essential part of this relationship; for PATRONsubj dis- REWARD0bj to POET, where dis- would be more appropriately translated as ‘grant’ or ‘allot’, we may compare the following instances from the Rigveda19:
RV 10.132.6c
ava priya didistana Grant things that are dear
RV 7.40.2c
didestu devy aditi rekno
May goddess Aditi grant us riches
RV 2.32.6d = 2.41.17d
prajam devi dididdhi nah Grant us progeny, o goddess
That the verb dis- in these contexts is essentially synonymous with da- has been noticed by medieval and modern commentators, compare Sayana’s paraphrase of 2.32.6d asputran dehi. Renou likewise translates dis- here as ‘donner’, suggesting a development from ‘assigner a qq’un une chose favorable’ (Renou 1967: 99). The following passage is less straightforward, but I believe that it falls under the same category:
19 Some of the examples below have been collected by Gonda 1929: 176.
А. С. Николаев
RV 3.31.21
ádedista vrtraha gópatir ga antáh krsnam arusaír dhamabhir gat prá sünrta disámana rténa dúras ca vísva avrnod ápa svah
± o o o . ± .
The Vrtra-slayer as the lord of cattle granted cows the black ones he expelled with red attendants.
Granting pleasant things by truth, he opened all his portals.
It is instructive to compare these examples where the subject of disis a god, with the following stanza, a danastuti praising the generosity of the king Srutáratha:
RV 5.36.6
yó róhitau vajínau vajínivan tribhíh sataíh sácamanav ádista yüne sám asmai ksitáyo namantam srutárathaya maruto duvoya O Maruts, let all the people bow down in reverence before this youthful Srutaratha,
Who, rich in gifts, granted me two victorious red horses together with three hundred cows
Returning to RV 8.74.15 and the problematic satyám tva áva dedisam (‘indicate truth’? ‘offer true (song)’?) we may further cite two concluding stanzas of RV 10.93 where the poet first states that he has (or will have) performed his hymn to an audience of generous patrons and then goes on to praise their generous gifts:
RV 10.93.14-15
prá tád duhsime prthavane vené prá ramé vocam ásure maghávatsu yé yuktvaya páñca satasmayú patha visravy esam ádhin nv átra saptatím ca saptá ca sadyó didista tanvah sadyó didista parthyáh sadyó didista mayaváh
This I have sung (or: will sing?) to Duhsima Prthavana, to Vena, to Rama, the Lord and to the generous patrons20 who yoked five hundred (horses), so that (it) was famed upon their way21.
Besides, seven and seventy horses Tanva granted on the same day,
Parthya granted on the same day and Mayava granted on the same day.
20 Or: prâ ramé âsure maghâvatsu «to Rama, the Lord among the generous
1912: 301 «d. h. wo sie zogen, wurde ihre Freigebigkeit gerühmt». Oldenberg signals another way of interpreting the difficult syntax, namely, by assuming that plural yé in the beginning of the pada c is resumed by a singular verb.
patrons»?
1 Cf. Oldenberg
Assuming that the same rhetorical structure is present in the far more concise danastuti in RV 8.74.15, it will not be outlandish to translate its padas a-b satyam it tva mahenadi | parusny ava dedisam as «I offer truth (viz. a truthful song of praise) to you, Parusni, the great river». Just as in RV 10.93.14, this description of the poet’s action is followed by the praise of his patron’s generosity: nem apo asvadatarah | savisthad asti martyah «no mortal is there who gives more horses than Savistha gives,
o waters».
To summarize briefly the results of our investigation of the root dis-in the Rigveda, it appears that in the majority of cases the verb denotes an act of giving: either of praise, offered by the poet to a god, or of reward, granted by god to the poet.22 It cannot be entirely coincidental that out of thirteen occurrences of uncompounded dis- in the Rigveda eleven can or must be translated as «to grant» or «to offer» 23.
4. In Avestan, too, we find the verb dis- used with mizda- and asi-‘reward’. That this is the same usage as in the Vedic passages discussed above can be clearly seen in the following passage from the Videvdad, where Ahura Mazda is responding to the question cuuat ahmai naire mizdsm ayhai ‘how much shall the reward for that man be’:
Vd. 9.44
o
aat mraol ahuro mazda disiial ahmai naire auual mizddm paro.asnai atfhe vazduuard vahistahe ayhdus Then Ahura Mazda said:
That reward shall be allotted to this man for new life in days to come: the fattiness of the Best Life25.
The situation is infinitely more complex with the following passage from the Ahunauuaiti GaOa:
22 This usage of the verb is occasionally found in later Vedic and Classical Sanskrit; in particular, ä dis- in Satapathabrähmana encodes the speech act that accompanies the offering. See Gonda 1929: 176; Tichy 1979: 173; 188-189.
23 As was pointed out above, the intensive stem dédis- has a somewhat different meaning; if intensive is counted in, the ratio is 13 out of 21.
24 The formula disiiäl hë ayhe auual mizddm ‘that reward shall be allotted to him’ is found six times in A. 3.7-12.
25 The text and translation have been adopted from Hintze 2000: 325. The form disiiäl (3 sg. subj. pres. pass.) is translated by Hintze as «gezeigt werden soll», by Bartholomae as «zugesichert werden soll».
Y. 33.13
rafddrai vourucasane doisl moi ya vd abifra ta xsa&rahiia ahura ya vayhdus asis manayho fro spdnta armaite asa daena [fra]daxsaiia
(Come to us) for support, O far-seeing one. Dis- to me Your abifra, those of (Your) power, o Ahura, which (are) a reward of good thought.
O beneficent Right-Mindedness, instruct the religious views through truth26.
Translators and commentators have usually rendered ddisi mdi as «show me», under assumption that the verb is used in its literal meaning and refers here to a demonstration27. According to H.-P. Schmidt (1985: 29), «the Lord is asked to show his inalienable powers which are the manifestations of His rule and the reward of good thinking. [...] The Lord is to make a demonstration in order to show that his Powers have grown strong enough to guarantee immediate results». This is not at all implausible; but given what we have learned thus far from Greek and Vedic one is at least entitled to wonder whether the poet here is really asking to see the aspects of the reward and would be satisfied by a demonstration, or, as could perhaps be expected, he is actually praying to
obtain a reward for his devotion thanks to which Ahura Mazda has
— 28
grown strong? As long as the hapax abifra remains a crux , no certainty can be achieved here, but I believe that translation of ddisi mdi as «grant me» remains a possibility.
Let us take stock: in Indo-Iranian poetic language *daic- was one of the roots referring to the «symbiotic relationship» (West 2007: 30) between laudandus and laudator (god and poet or, mutatis mutandis, patron and poet): it encoded both the offering of praise (in form of a song) by a poet to a god and the giving of a reward by a patron to a poet. Greek ScT^ai ^cAoq, reconstructible on the basis of passages in Alcman and Bacchylides, continues the second of these options ( ~ Vedic namauktim adiksi).
5. Equipped with these results we are now in the position to revisit an old etymological problem in the language of the Greek epic, namely, the epithet apiSciKcxoq. This is clearly an archaic expression which in Homer is usually followed by genitive plural and located at the verse-end:
26 The text and translation have been adopted from Humbach-Faiss 2010: 99.
27 But note Insler 1975: 218 «reveal to me».
28 «Das Unvergleichliche» Bartholomae, «peculiarities» Humbach, «support» Insler, «inalienables» H.-P. Schmidt. See Hintze 2000: 251 n. 6 for discussion and references.
Il. 11.248
Tov S’ ©<; onv evonae Korov apiSeiKexo«; avSprov
When Koon, apiSeiKexo«; among men, saw this
Il. 14.320
^ x£Ke nepa^a navxrov apiSeiKexov avSprov who bore me the apiSeiKexo«; hero Perseus Od. 8.382+ (6x)
AlKivoe Kpeiov, navxrov apiSeiKexe larov, king Alcinoos, apiSeiKexo^ among hosts of men Hes. Th. 385
Kai Kpaxo<; ^Se Binv apiSeiKexa yeivaxo xeKva and she gave birth to Cratos (Supremacy) and Bia (Force), apiSeiKexoi children Hes. Th. 532
xanx’ apa a^opevo«; xipa apiSeiKexov uiov
in this way, he respectfully honored his apiSeiKexo«; son (i.e. Heracles) Hes. Th. 543
lanexioviSn, navxrov apiSeiKex’ avaKxrov Son of Iapetus, apiSeiKexo^ among all rulers!
Both the formal similarity with the root of SciKvupi and the meaning ‘renowned, famous’ have been clear to scholars ever since the beginning of Homeric studies; the problem has been the apparent incompatibility of the meanings ‘famous’ and ‘to show’29. Therefore Schulze’s suggestion to view apiSciKcxoq as a metrically lengthened form of *dpi58K8xoq (to Latin decus ‘dignity’) has won wide acceptance (Schulze 1892: 242). Now, the observations on the poetic use of the verbal root *deik- made in this paper and the reconstruction of a formula *8cT^ai allow for a simple solution for this old conundrum: apiSciKcxoq meant ‘praised (in song)’, hence ‘famous’30.
6. It remains to place our findings into a broader comparative perspective and map directions for future research.
r
6.1. As is well known, Italic and Germanic reflexes of the root *deik- are verba dicendi: Latin (-)dicere and (-)dicare, Oscan deikum, Umbrian deitu, Gothic ga-teihan ‘arcayyclciv, announce’, Old High German zihan ‘to incriminate’. Especially in view of the compounds Latin iudex and Oscan meddis(s) it has been assumed that the development from ‘show’ to ‘speak’ first took place in the legal language, while the older meaning ‘show’ remained fossilized in a handful of isolated forms (Latin index)3 .
29 See the discussion and references in Vine 1998. I would like to thank Brent Vine for pointing out the relevance of apiSeiKexo^ to me.
30 Note also the Doric proper name ApiSeiKn^.
31 See Porzig 1954: 113; Benveniste 1969: II, 107-109.
As it seems, we can now make further progress beyond the classic discussion by Benveniste in our understanding of the semantic development of *deik-.
r
It is not unreasonable to speculate that not only «legal» *deik-, but also «poetic» *deik-, reconstructed for the PIE Dichtersprache in this paper, could have contributed to the rise of the meaning ‘speak’ in the Italic branch. The only assumption that needs to be made is that this root was already employed in the poetic language by the time Italo-Celtic (and Germanic) became separate subgroups. Moreover, one is entitled to wonder whether there are any lexical archaisms in Italic that could directly go back to PIE *deik- in its poetic meaning ‘praise in a song’ uel sim. Finding such survivals will of course be a tremendously difficult task, since in most cases a meaning such as ‘to praise’ or ‘to speak solemnly’ would be easily deducible from Proto-Italic ‘to speak’, as for instance seems to be the case with Umbrian tigel ‘declaration, ritual formula’32. Nonetheless, I would like to signal just one of several potentially interesting early Latin contexts, where the «durative» verb dicare could actually continue something very old:
Lucil. 1080 (Marx)
sicubi ad auris
fama tuam pugnam <prae>claram adlata dicasset claram cdd. : praeclaram Marx : clarans Warmington wheresoever rumor that was brought to my ears praised your splendid fight
This is a potentially promising direction for future research.
6.2. Since Italo-Celtic in all likelihood was the third branch to leave the main body of Indo-European languages (see Jasanoff 2003: 204-205; Ringe 2006: 5-6), it would be appropriate to turn our attention to Anatolian and Tocharian in search of the vestiges of the root *deik- in order to determine whether or not the «poetic» meaning was already present in the earliest Proto-Indo-European or it should be viewed as a later development. There is nothing in Tocharian, as it seems, but in Anatolian we may in fact find a hitherto unrecognized cognate in the Hittite word tekri-.
32 tiglu sevakni teitu ‘speak the solemn formula’ (III 25), tiglu sevakni naratu ‘say the solemn formula’ (III 27), see Weiss 2010: 200-217. The nature of the text itself can, too, in this case be responsible for the meaning of the word and it would be methodologically unwise to directly project the meaning ‘ritual formula’ back to the poetic language of Indo-Europeans without allowing for a secondary development from Proto-Italic *deikelo- ‘what is said’.
This word is scantily attested and, crucially, one important context only recently came to light (see Tischler 1993: 302; Kloekhorst 2008: 863-864). Beside an attestation in the vocabulary (KBo 26.10 iv) where te-ek-ri-is is found alongside with markiiauar ‘rejection’ we only have two real contexts. One of them is from the Deeds of Suppiluliuma (CTH 40.IV.1.A), in the speech of the queen of Egypt:
KBo 5.6 rev. iii 14-15
... \R=IA=ma=ua nu-u-ua-a-anpa-ra-a da-ah-hi nu=ua-r=a-an=za=kan luMU-TI=IA i-ia-mi te-ek-ri=[u]a na-ah-mi
I do not want to take one of my subjects and make him my husband
I fear for tekri- (Ed. del Monte 2009: 121).
It has been noticed that a similar idea is reprised a few lines later:
KBo 5.6 rev. iii 54-iv 2
ku-ua-pi DUMU- IA e-es-ta am-mu-uk-ma-an-ua am-me-el [R]A-MA-NI-IA am-me-el-la KUR-e-as te-ep-nu-mar ta-me-ta-ni KUR-e ha-at-ra-nu-un
Had I a son, would I have written about my own and my country’s shame (tepnumar) to a foreign land?
The words tekri- and tepnumar ‘humiliation, derogation, shame’ thus likely belong into the same semantic field; accordingly, tekri- has been translated as ‘Befleckung’ (Friedrich, Guterbock, Kronasser, Rieken) or ‘Kennzeichung’ (Neu)3 .
The second context comes from a NS text (CTH 190), recently edited by Miller 2008: 121-124:
KBo 18.28+KBo 50.73+Bo 3626
9’ [nu] tekrin kuin tekri[skez]i
Alexandrov and Sideltsev (2009) have discussed the exceedingly difficult beginning of this text (4’-12’) and analyzed the clause [nu] tekrin kuin tekri[skezz]i as a (rhetorical) question ‘what slander / insult is he hurling?’3 The translation ‘slander’ fits nicely the passage from the Deeds of Suppiluliuma: what the queen of Egypt is afraid of is
33 The only dissenting opinion on the record has been that of Kloekhorst who opted for ‘deposition’, but see now the persuasive criticisms by Alexandrov and Sideltsev 2009: 63-64 (note that the second context to be discussed presently in the main text could not be known to Kloekhorst prior to the completion of his dictionary).
34 The authors have adopted suggestions made to them by C. Melchert and J. Miller.
А. С. Николаев
derogation (or gossip?). The unmistakable figura etymologica in the second context makes it particularly significant for our purposes.
Phonologically and morphologically nothing stands in the way of deriving tekri- from the root *deik-35. From the semantic viewpoint the etymology is likewise unproblematic: for instance, one might recall the Slavic cognates of Greek K^éoç (Russian слава, Chroatian slava) which mean both ‘glory’ and ‘ill fame’. Can it be excluded that the meaning of Hittite tekri- ‘slander’ reflects the fact that in Indo-European poetry *deik- could apply to poets’ conveying both laus and vituperatio?
References
Alexandrov, Sideltsev 2009 - Alexandrov B. E., Sideltsev A. V. Hittite assweni // Revue d’Assyriologie 103. P. 59-84.
Aloni 1994 - Aloni A. Lirici Greci. Alcmane e Stesicoro, in appendice Simonide, Elegia per la battaglia di Platea. Milano: Mondadori. Bagordo 2000 - Bagordo A. Teognide 769-772 e il lessico metaletterario arcaico // Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca 3. P. 183-203.
Barnes 2011 - Barnes T. Alcmanica // paper presented at the 30th East Coast Indo-European Conference (Harvard University).
Benveniste 1969 - Benveniste E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-
r
européennes. 2 vols. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Calame 1983 - Calame C. Alcman. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo.
Calame 2001 - Calame C. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Functions. Trans. by D. Collins and J. Orion. New and rev. ed. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Carey 1981 - Carey C. A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar: Pythian 2, Pythian 9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8. New York: Arno Press. Davies 1986 - Davies M. The motiv of the npfàxoç snpsx^ç in Alcman // Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 65. P. 25-27.
Dissen 1921 - Dissen L. Explicationes ad Isthmia // Pindari opera quae supersunt, ed. A. Boeckh. Vol. 2/2. Leipzig: Weigel. P. 481-548.
Farnell 1930 - Farnell L. R. The Works of Pindar. Vol. 2: Critical Commentary.
London: MacMillan.
Ford 1985 - Ford A. J. The Seal of Theognis: the Politics of Authorship in Archaic Greece // Theognis of Megara. Poetry and the Polis, ed. by T. J. Figueira and G. Nagy. Baltimore, Md.-London. P. 82-95.
Gonda 1929 - Gonda J. Asîkvu^i. Semantische Studie over den IndoGermanische Wortel DEIK-. Amsterdam: H. J. Paris.
Hintze 2000 - Hintze A. Lohn im Indoiranischen: eine semantische Studie des Rigveda und Avesta. Wiesbaden: Reichelt.
Hintze 2004 - Hintze A. «Do ut des»: Patterns of Exchange in Zoroastrianism // Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 14/1. P. 27-45.
Hoffmann 1967 - Hoffmann K. Der injunktiv im Veda: eine synchronische Funktionsuntersuchung. Heidelberg: Winter.
35 Kloekhorst (2008: 864) has actually suggested *deik- as the etymon, but since he operates with a meaning ‘deposition’, he chose LIV *deik-2 ‘to throw’ (Greek aor. SiKe/o-, Chotanese diss-), not *deik-! of SeiKvupi, etc.
Humbach, Faiss 2010 - Humbach H., Faiss K. Zarathushtra and his Antagonists: a Sociolinguistic Study with English and German Translations of his Gathas. Wiesbaden: Reichelt.
Insler 1975 - Insler S. The Gathas of Zarathustra. Téhéran: Bibliothèque Pahlavi; Leiden: Brill.
Jasanoff 2003 - Jasanoff J. H. Hittite and Indo-European Verb. Oxford University Press.
Kloekhorst 2008 - Kloekhorst A. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Lattimore 1976 - Lattimore R. The Odes of Pindar. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Maehler 1997 - Maehler H. Die Lieder des Bakchylides. Vol. 2: Die Dithyramben und Fragmente. Leiden: Brill.
Marzullo 1964 - Marzullo B. Alcman fr. 59 P. // Helikon 4. P. 297-302.
Miller 2008 - Miller J. Joins and Duplicates among the Bogazköy Tablets (3145) // Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 98. P. 117-137.
Momigliano 1971 - Momigliano A. D. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Monte 2009 - Monte G. del. Le gesta di Suppiluliuma. Pisa.
Oldenberg 1912 - Oldenberg H. Rgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Vol. 2. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Podlecki 1969 - Podlecki A. J. The Peripatetics as Literary Critics // Phoenix 23/1. P. 114-137.
Porzig 1954 - Porzig W. Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Heidelberg: Winter.
Radt 1972 - Radt S. L. Review of Thummer 1969. Mnemosyne 25/2. P. 194200.
r
Renou 1964 - Renou L. Etudes védiques et paninéennes. Vol. 13. Paris: Boccard.
r
Renou 1967 - Renou L. Etudes védiques et paninéennes. Vol. 16. Paris: Boccard.
Ringe 2006 - Ringe D. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press.
Schaefer 1994 - Schaefer C. Das Intensivum im Vedischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht
Schmidt 1985 - Schmidt H.-P. Form and meaning of Yasna 33. (With contributions by W. Lentz and S. Insler). New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Schulze 1892 - Schulze W. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh.
Taccone 1934 - Taccone A. L’Isthmia VIII di Pindaro // Il Mondo Classico 4. P. 285-289.
Thummer 1969 - Thummer E. Pindar. Die Isthmischen Gedichte. Bd. I-II. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Tischler 1993 - Tischler J. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Mit Beiträgen von E. Neu und G. Neumann. Vol. 3. Fasc. 9. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Tichy 1979 - Tichy E. Semantische Studien zu idg. 1. *deik- ‘zeigen’ und 2. *deik- ‘werfen’ // Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 38. P. 171228.
Vine 1998 - Vine B. Aeolic opnexov and Deverbative *-eto- in Greek and Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Watkins 1995 - Watkins C. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford University Press.
Weiss 2010 - Weiss M. Language and Ritual in Sabellic Italy: The Ritual Complex of the Third and the Fourth Tabulae Iguvinae. Boston / Leider: Brill.
West 2007 - West M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford University Press.
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff 1922 - Wilamowitz-Möllendorff U. von. Pindaros. Berlin: Weidmann.
Woodbury 1991 - Woodbury L. E. Poetry and Publication: Theognis 769-772 // Collected Writings of Leonard E. Woodbury / ed. by C. Brown et al. Atlanta: Scholars Press. P. 483-490.
