Poetic Language and Religion in Greece and Rome Edited by J

Poetic Language and Religion in Greece and Rome
Edited by J. Virgilio García and Angel Ruiz
This book first published 2013
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2013 by J. Virgilio García, Angel Ruiz and contributors
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-5248-1, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5248-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ..................................................................................................... viii
José Virgilio García Trabazo and Angel Ruiz
Indo-European Poetic Language
Gods And Vowels....................................................................................... 2
Joshua T. Katz
Some Linguistic Devices of the Greek Poetical Tradition........................ 29
Jordi Redondo
In Tenga Bithnua y la Lengua Angélica: Sus Fuentes y su Función ........ 39
Henar Velasco López
Rumpelstilzchen: The Name of the Supernatural Helper and the Language
of the Gods ............................................................................................... 51
Óscar M. Bernao Fariñas
Religious Onomastics in Ancient Greece and Italy: Lexique, Phraseology
and Indo-european Poetic Language ........................................................ 60
José L. García Ramón
Two Epithets of Zeus in Laconia in the Light
of Homeric Phraseology ......................................................................... 108
Ana Vegas Sansalvador
Τάρταρος ................................................................................................ 118
Daniel Kölligan
Religious Etymology and Poetic Syncretism at Rome ........................... 127
Colin Shelton
Ancient Linguistic, Literary and Religious Elements in Kallimachos
and Chrysorrhoe ..................................................................................... 136
Edwin D. Floyd
vi
Table of Contents
Religious Language in Greek and Latin Literature
Poesía y Ritual en la Grecia Antigua: Observaciones Sobre
los Peanes Délficos ................................................................................. 146
Emilio Suárez de la Torre
Consulting the Gods in the Odyssey ....................................................... 183
Claudia Zatta
‘Religious Register’ and Comedy: The Case of Cratinus ....................... 190
Francesco Paolo Bianchi
Oracles and Riddles Ambo Fratres:
Cultural (and Family) Relations Between Oracula and Aenigmata ....... 199
Simone Beta
Late Antique Oracles: Samples of Ασάφεια or Σαφήνεια?..................... 207
Lucia Maddalena Tissi
En Torno al Vocabulario Religioso Helenístico:
Temis y dike en Euforión y su Hipotexto Hesiódico .............................. 222
Josep A. Clúa Serena
Intertextuality and the Cultic Dimension in Lycophron’s Rewriting
of Myth: Iphigenia and Childbirth .......................................................... 230
Giulia Biffis
The Achilles’ Oath in Hom. Il. 1.236-244:
Intertextuality and Survival .................................................................... 243
Manuel Pérez López
Plegaria e Himno Literario: Los Dioscuros en las Inscripciones de Prote,
Alceo y dos Himnos Homéricos ............................................................. 250
José B. Torres Guerra
The Magicians who Sang to the Gods .................................................... 258
Miriam Blanco
Thesea Devovi: Magic, Ritual and Heroes in Ovid’s Heroides .............. 266
Nathalie Sado Nisinson
El Himno de Adrasto a Apolo en la Tebaida de Estacio ........................ 275
José Manuel Vélez Latorre
Poetic Language and Religion in Greece and Rome
vii
Poetic and Religious Traditionalism in Avienus:
The Prooemium of the Aratea ................................................................ 282
Amedeo Alessandro Raschieri
Venus, Ceres and Ovid: Divinity, Knowledge and the Generation
of Poetry in Book IV of Ovid’s Fasti ..................................................... 293
Charles Bartlett
Magic as a Poetic Process: Vergil and the Carmina ............................... 301
Mathieu Minet
Poetic and Religious Language in Roman Tragic Fragments
Concerning Medea.................................................................................. 310
Maria Jennifer Falcone
Index ....................................................................................................... 321
RELIGIOUS ONOMASTICS
IN ANCIENT GREECE AND ITALY:
LEXIQUE, PHRASEOLOGY AND INDOEUROPEAN POETIC LANGUAGE*
JOSÉ L. GARCÍA RAMÓN
UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE
1. The epithets used to invoke gods in a ritual context (hence the term
ἐπίκλησις) attested in inscriptions or quoted in literary texts, reveal a lot of
information about the respective god’s characteristics: they therefore
occupy a special position within the representations of divine beings by
the Greeks and Romans. The numerous cultic and literary epithets of gods,
inasmuch as they are understandable ex graeco ipso, ex latino ipso or by
linguistic comparison, reflect different aspects of their divine personality:
in fact they can show astonishing characteristics, which are highly
instructive about the respective god’s powers and the religious knowledge
codified in local traditions. Divine epithets appear in epigraphical texts or
are quoted in poetry or historical texts; epithets of only literary
provenance, albeit sometimes based on the poet’s free imagination, often
also reflect the imagery of the cultic epithets and thus basically agree in
their portrayal of the god’s characteristics. Local epithets can reflect the
* This paper has been written within the framework of the Research Project
“Divine epithets in Ancient Greece: a linguistic and philological approach” (PPPProgramme DAAD/Vigoni: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore / Seminario di
Filologia Classica e Papirologia / Universität zi Köln, Historisch-Vergelichende
Sprachwissenschaft, 2011/2012. It is a part of the Loeb Lecture “Indo-European
Continuity in Greek and Latin Onomastics”, held April 17th 2012 at the
Department of Classics at Harvard. It is a pleasant duty to express my gratitude to
Daniel Kölligan (Köln), Daniele Maras (Roma), José Marcos Macedo (Saô Paulo /
Köln), José Luis Melena (Vitoria), Paolo Poccetti (Roma), Ana Vegas Sansalvador
(Köln), and M. Weiss (Cornell) for their remarks and criticism. My warm thanks
also go to Karolina Gierej, Denise Hübner, and especially Lena Wolberg (Köln)
for her invaluable help in the material preparation of the manuscript.
José L. García Ramón
61
panhellenic divine imagery, i.e. the standard imagery of the Olympic and
lesser gods without geographical distinction. But each Greek and Italic
region attests in its epigraphy numerous typical, sometimes also
unexpected epithets. They may be unique, or related to a god for the first
time only from one source, and even appear completely strange for a
specific god.
The first question when dealing with epithets concerns the distinction
between cultic and exclusively literary epithets, i.e. whether epithets
quoted in literature are of cultic provenance or a poetic invention. That
cultic epithets are usually written with majuscule, whereas literary epithets
are with minuscule (except when they are directly used as the name of the
god) is, of course, purely conventional. It must be noted that literary
epithets can be of a cultic nature, too: the absence of a corresponding ritual
context may be due to the lack of documentation. Even if an epithet was
invented by the poet (thus showing perhaps an ‘occasional’ nature), it has
the same function as a traditional epithet, inasmuch as it describes the
god’s essence (or a part of it). Lexicographical literature, which quotes
many epithets with or without indication of their regional or dialectal
provenance, is often astonishingly precise in their explanation. The
evaluation of divine epithets meets with different possibilities:
(1) the meaning of the epithet is obscure; in this case there is no other
possibility than to associate it, as far as possible, with non-Greek or
non-Italic proper names (toponyms, theonyms, ethnics), in other
words, to admit that it is not Indo-European and to renounce a
linguistic explanation.
(2) the epithet, inasmuch as it is interpretable within Greek or Latin /
Sabellic by way of comparison with other Indo-European
traditions, indicates a particularity (specific or not) of the god; in
this case, we are dealing with various possibilities:
(a) the epithet perfectly fits into the pattern of the god’s nature.
Ideally, the divine character is indicated by epithets, poetry and
iconography at the same time: this is e.g. the case of Apollo
‘with the silver bow’ (ἀργυρότοξος), or Artemis ‘who holds the
arrow in her hands’ (ἰοχέαιρα).
(b) the epithet informs us about the god’s imagery in the region in
which it appears, although iconographical support is lacking.
This is e.g. the case of Χαμύνη of Demeter in Olympia, or that
of Ἐριούνιος of Ηermes. Χαμύνη ‘who has her bed (εὐνή) on
62
Religious Onomastics
the ground (χαμαί)’1 reflects ex Graeco ipso the liaison of the
goddess with mortal Iasion, as transmitted since Hοmer (Od.
5.125), as shown by A. Vegas Sansalvador. For its part,
Ἐριούνιος, Ἐριούνης ‘who is highly (ἐρι°) runner / helper’
conceals in its second member an abstract οὖνος* (or a
denominative οὐνο/ε-* ‘run’), *οὔνη ‘course’,2 of the same root
*h2eu̯h1- as Hitt. ḫuu̯ai̯ - / ḫui̯ a-ḫḫi ‘run’ (HLuv. ḫuu̯ia-mi, CLuv.
ḫūi̯ a-mi), Ved. avi/ū, Lat. iūuō,-are ‘help’, as shown by E.
Langella,3 which illustrates the coexistence of both activities as
characteristic of Hermes.
(c) the epithet is intelligible, but without any recognizable relation
to the god’s nature, e.g. Apollo Δελφίνιος , who is characterized
in many regions by a strong connection with the local political
institutions of various communities, where he is venerated, and
with ephebical institutions (Graf 1979). In such a case where
meaning and function are not in agreement, the epithet is
unlikely to be explained satisfactorily on the strength of its
etymology.
The present contribution will make the case for the importance of the
phraseology (within Greek or Latin and/or of Indo-European origin) to
interpret divine epithets and names in a threefold approach. Firstly,
compounded epithets: literary compounds with ὀρσι° and ὀρσο°,
ἐγερσίμαχος (Atena), ἐριβόας (Dionysus), Lat. opitulus (Iuppiter).
Secondly, non-compounded epithets, coexisting or not with compounds
having the same lexical item as one of its members: Κεραυνóς, Στóρπᾱς
(both of Zeus), Thess. κορουταρρα (En(n)odia), Ζητήρ (Ζeus), Lat. Stator
(Iuppiter). Finally an attempt will be made to detect the forerunners (or
correspondences) of gods which are not mentioned by name in the
Mycenaean and the Sabellic domain in light of onomastics and
1
Or ‘having the earth (χαμ°) as bed’ (with °υνή as the zero-grade of εὐνή, cf.
χαμαιεύvης [Hom.], χαμεύvης [Hsch.]), see Od. 5.125 ὣς δ’ ὁπότ’ Ἰασίωνι
ἐϋπλόκαμος Δημήτηρ, /…, μίγη φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ / νειῷ ἔνι τριπόλῳ, also Hes.
Th. 968/9 Δημήτηρ μὲν Πλoῦτoν ἐγείνατo, ... , / Ἰασίωv᾿ ἥρῳ μιγεῖσ᾿ ἐρατῇ
φιλότητι / νειῷ ἔνι τριπόλῳ (Vegas Sansalvador 1992).
2
Cf. the Hesychian glosses οὔνη· δεῦρο. δράμε. Ἀρκάδες, οὖνον· [ὑγιές.] Κύπριοι
δρόμον, οὔνιος, οὔνης· δρομεύς. κλέπτης.
3
Cf. on the one hand HH 19.28/9: οἷόν θ’ Ἑρμείην ἐριούνιον … / … ὡς ὅ … θοὸς
ἄγγελός ἐστι, HH 2.407: Ἑρμῆς … ἐριούνιος ἄγγελος ὠκύς, on the other HH 4.28f
Διὸς δ’ ἐριούνιος υἱὸς / …/ “σύμβολον ἤδη μοι μέγ’ ὀνήσιμον,/ … 34 …ὄφελός τί
μοι ἔσσῃ. Further details in Langella (forthcoming).
José L. García Ramón
63
phraseology: Demeter and Apolo (not attested in Linear B), and Juno (non
attested in Sabellic Italy).
I. Compounded Epitheta Deorum and Phraseology
2. Let us start, in memory of our friend Juan José Moralejo, with the
essentials of some literary epithets, namely the compounds with ὀρσι° and
ὀρσo° as the first member, which were in part dealt with extensively in my
contribution to his Festschrift4: ὀρσίαλoς (Bacchylides) of Poseidon,
ὀρσιβάκχας (Ba.) and ὀρσιγύναικα (lyr. adesp.) of Dionysus, ὀρσίκτυπoς and
ὀρσινεφής (Pindar) of Zeus, ὀρσίμαχος (Ba.) of Αthena, also ὀρσοτρίανα
(Pi.) of Poseidon.
A crucial point must be stressed at random: ὀρσι° may actually conceal
two lexemes, which are perceived as different, at least in Homeric
“synchrony”, namely (a) ὄρνυμι ‘to rise (up), to put in vertical motion’ (aor.
ὀρσα-, med. ὦρτο, perf. ὄρωρε, quoted as ὀρ- in what follows), and (b) ὀρίνω
‘to stir (up), whirl, agitate, rouse’ (aor. ὀρινα-, perf. ὀρώρεται: ὀρινo/ε- in
what follows), as phraseological collocations clearly show. A first member
ὀρσι° is the regular reflex of (a) ὀρ-. Whereas for (b) ὀρινο/ε-, whichever its
etymology could be (surely connected with Ved. riṇā́ ti),5 one would have
expected *ὁρισι° (cf. φθισι° :: φθίνω, τ(ε)ισι° :: τίνω): the choice of ὀρσι°
instead of regular +ὀρισι° was probably favoured by the absence of an aor.
+
ὀρισα-.
In fact ὀρ- ‘to rise’ and ὀριvο/ε- ‘to stir (up), whirl’ may occur in identical
collocations: they partially overlap, although they were not used as exact
synonyms6. Both senses are also attested for Ved. ar / r̥ (pres. [úd-]iyárti),
4
García Ramón 2012.
Most probably *h3rei̯ H- “wallen, wirbeln” (Rix 1965, 29ff., LIV2 s.v.), which
may be an enlarged variant of *h1er-: OCS rějǫ (-ati) ‘to flow’, Ved. rīyate
‘flows’. Gk. ὀρῑ́νω (*-nH-i̯ o/e-) surely continues a nasal pres. *h1ri-n-éH- (Ved.
riṇā́ ti ‘sets in violent motion’ [of liquids], Goth. rinnan ‘to run’).
6
Other referents may be attached to (a) ὀρ- or to (b) ὀρινο/ε- even if they are (fully or
in part) synonym, for instance: to (a) ὀρ- cf. νόος (ὅππῃ οἱ νόος ὄρνυται Od.1.347),
μένος (καί μοι μένος ὤρορε Il. 13.78), στόνος (τῶν δὲ στόνος ὄρνυτ‘ ἀεικής Il.
10.483 et al.). To (b) ὀρινο/ε-, cf. ἦτορ (…μηδέ μοι ἦτορ / ἐν στήθεσσιν ὄρινε
Od.17.47), κῆρ (ὄρινε δὲ κῆρ Ὀδυσῆος Od. 17.216) and especially θυμός (“den
θυμός aufwühlen, ihn aus der Ruhe in Wallung, Erregung, durcheinander bringen”
Rix 1965, 23-24, cf. … Ἴρῳ δὲ κακῶς ὠρίνετο θυμός Οd. 18.75, πᾶσιν ὀρίνθη
θυμός Ιl. 18.223, τοῖσι δὲ θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ὄρινε Il. 2.142, et al.), also with
perf. ὀρώρεται (ἐπεί μοι ὀρώρεται ἔνδοθι θυμὸς / κήδεσιν Od. 19.377, … ἐμοὶ δίχα
θυμὸς ὀρώρεται ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα ibid. 524).
5
64
Religious Onomastics
which occurs partly in the same collocations, whereas Ved. rayi /rī is
restricted to flowing liquids: in fact, comparison with Vedic is not always
helpful to elucidate the sense of compounds with ὀρσι°. Consequently for
each of the Greek divine epithets with ὀρσι° appurtenance to both (a) ὀρ- and
(b) ὀρινο/ε- should be taken into account. Α decision in favour of one or the
other, or of both, is only possible on the basis of the collocations actually
attested.
3. Let us remember some collocations attested with both ὀρ- and ὀρινο/ε-,
namely with γόος ‘wipe, lament’, ὀρυμαγδός ‘loud noise, din’, and μῆνις and
νεῖκος, synonyms for ‘wrath, strife’, as well as with κῦμα ‘wave’.
As to γόος7, cf. (a) Od.17.46-7 μῆτερ ἐμή, μή μοι γόον ὄρνυθι μηδέ μοι
ἦτορ / ἐν στήθεσσιν ὄρινε φυγόντι περ αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον ‘… do not make my
weep rise (ὄρνυθι), nor agitate (ὄρινε) my heart in my breast at having
escaped …’ and (b) Il. 24.760 Ὣς ἔφατο κλαίουσα, γόον δ' ἀλίαστον ὄρινε
‘… and roused endless weep/lament’.
As to ὀρυμαγδός, cf. (a) Il. 2.810 ... πολὺς δ᾿ ὀρυμαγδὸς ὀρώρει ‘a great
din was arisen’ and (b) … πολὺν δ᾿ ὀρυμαγδὸν ὄρινε Il. 21.313 [: 24.760]
‘and stir up a great din ... ’, Οd. 22.360 ἠὲ σοὶ ἀντεβόλησεν ὀρινομένῳ
κατὰ δῶμα ‘… or he met you when you were storming through the
palace’8.
Αs to νεῖκoς / μῆνις, cf. (a) Il. 3.87 τoῦ εἵνεκα νεῖκoς ὄρωρε ‘for whose
sake this strife is arisen’ and (b) Ba. 13.110-2 ὁππότε Πη̣[λείδας / τρα[χε̣]ῖαν
[Ατρείδαισι μ]ᾶνιν / ὠρίνατ[o ‘when the Pelide stirred hard strife against the
Atrides’.
The same applies to κῦμα ‘wave’ which is (a) ‘risen up’ (ὀρ-) by the wind
and/or from the sea, but also (b) ‘stirred (up)’ (expressed not by ὀρινo/ε- but
by synonymous κινεο/ε-). As to (a) cf. Od. 5.366 ὦρσε δ᾿ ἐπὶ μέγα κῦμα
Πoσειδάων ἐνoσίχθων ‘Poseidon, shaker of the earth, made to rise up drove
on a great wave’ (also Il. 14.394-5 with the winds as the agent). As to (b) cf.
Il. 2.145-7 κινήθη δ᾿ ἀγορὴ φὴ κύματα μακρὰ θαλάσσης / πόντου
Ἰκαρίοιο, τὰ μέν τ' Εὖρός τε Νότος τε / ὤρορ᾿(ε) ... ‘and the assembly
became stirred up (κινήθη : ὠρίνθη) like the long waves of the Icarian see,
which the East wind or the South Wind has raised’ (τὰ ... ὤρορ᾿[ε]).
The comparison with Vedic (ūrmí- ‘wave’, ar / r̥) is straightforward and
allows a step further to be taken:
7
Also with ἵμερος γόοιο (τοῖσι δὲ πᾶσιν ὑφ' ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο Il. 23.108).
There is no need to assume that σοὶ ... ὀρινομένῳ has been created on the model
of *σοὶ ...ὀρνυμένῳ (pace Rix 1965, 25ff.). The occurrences of ὀρινο/ε- in contexts
where ὀρ- is also attested are not neccesarily to be understood as “homerische
Wörter”.
8
José L. García Ramón
65
Il. 14.394-5 oὔτε θαλάσσης κῦμα τόσoν βoάᾳ πoτὶ χέρσoν
πoντόθεν ὀρvύμενoν πνoίῃ Βoρέω ἀλεγεινῇ
‘not such is the roaring of the wave of the sea on the shore driven/risen up
from the deep/sea by the dread blast of the North Wind’
RV X 123.2a samudrā́ d ūrmím úd iyarti venáḥ
‘from the sea the seer raises the wave’.
This allows for the assumption of a phraseological pattern, which may be
inherited
WAVE
κῦμα
ūrmí-
RAISE UP
ὀρúd- ar/r̥
from SEA
ποντόθεν
samudrā́ d
(by WIND)
+
-
4. Some of the literary compounds with ὀρσι° reflect essential
peculiarities of the god, but do not allow a decision to be made between ‘to
raise (up)’ and ‘to stir (up), whirl, agitate’. This is the case of the epithets of
Dionysus ὀρσιβάκχας and ὀρσιγύναικα:
(1) ὀρσιβάκχας ‘who excites the Bacchants (: Βάκχαι)’: Ba. 19.49-50
τὸν ὀρσιβάκχα[ν / ... Διόνυσoν [.9 In fact ὀρσι° may conceal (a) ὀρ-, cf.
Nonn. D. 20.342 ὣς ὅ γε … / εἰς ὄρος… ἤλασε Βάκχας (with ἐλαυνο/ε-,
the lexical continuant if ὀρ-, cf. νῆυς... ὀρνυμένη (Od. 12.182/3 : Ved.
iyarti nā́ vam)  νῆα ἐλαυνέμεν (Il. 23.334), but also (b) ὀρινο/ε-, as
expressed by means of σευο/ε- by Eust. Il. 2.260 ἀφ’ ἧς ὁ Διόνυσος
ὠνομάσθαι δοκεῖ, περὶ ἣν ὁ δηλωθεὶς Λυκοῦργος ἔσευε τὰς Βάκχας.
(2) ὀρσιγύναικα ‘who excites the women (γυναῖκες): Lyr. adesp. 131
[PMG 1003] εὔιoν ὀρσιγύναικα μαινoμέναις Διόνυσoν ἀνθέoντα10.
5. Other epithets, on the contrary, are transparent, as the interpretation of
ὀρσι° is supported by the attested phraseology. This is the case of ὀρσίκτυπoς
(Zeus), where ὀρσι° matches ὀρ-, and of ὀρσίαλoς (Poseidon) and ὀρσινεφής
(Zeus), which reflect Homeric collocations with only (b) ὀρινο/ε- (and
synonymous):
9
Eust. ad Il. 2.260 ἀφ’ ἧς ὁ Διόνυσος ὠνομάσθαι δοκεῖ, περὶ ἣν ὁ δηλωθεὶς
Λυκοῦργος ἔσευε τὰς Βάκχας.
10
Cf. also the antonym γυναιμανής ‘mad for women’ (of Dionysus, -ές HH 34.17
ἵληθ' εἰραφιῶτα γυναιμανές Nonn.), firstly of Paris (Δύσπαρι … γυναιμανές Il.3.39,
13.769), glossed as γυναιμανές· γυναικομανές (Hsch.), γυναιμανής· ἐπὶ γυναιξὶ
μαινόμενος (Sud.). Late γυναιμανέων was wrongly reinterpreted as ‘making women
mad’ (Q.S. 735, Nonn. D. 2.125).
Religious Onomastics
66
(1) ὀρσίκτυπoς (Zeus) ‘who raises bang’ (: κτύπος): Pi. O. 10.81
ὀρσικτύπoυ Διὸς. See Il. 20.66 τόσσoς ἄρα κτύπoς ὦρτo θεῶν ἔριδι
ξυνιόντων ‘so great was the crash that arose when the gods clashed in
strife’11.
(2) ὀρσίαλoς (Poseidon): ‘who stirs the sea’: Βa. 16.19 ὀρσιάλῳ
δαμασίχθoνι.
The epithet reflects *ὀρίνει ἅλα as shown by the parallel with Od. 7.271-3:
πoλλῇ, τήν μoι ἐπῶρσε Πoσειδάων ἐvoσίχθων,
ὅς μoι ἐφoρμήσας ἀνέμoυς κατέδησε κέλευθoν
ὤρινεν δὲ θάλασσαν ἀθέσφατoν ‘… with great woe (scil. ὀιζυῖ), which
Poseidon rose12… upon me, he who, raising up the winds … and stirred up
an unspeakable sea’.
More precisely, the passages make clear that the god (a) raises up the
winds (ἐπῶρσε, ἐφoρμήσας13), and (b) stirs (up) the sea (ὤριvεv)14. This
characteristic activity of Poseidon15 is also expressed by means of other
synonym verbs (ταράσσω, κινέω)16.
On the other hand, the collocation (b) [WIND – STIR UP – SEA] is well
attested by means of synonyms also in Vedic:
Il. 9.4 ὡς δ’ ἄνεμoι δύo πόντoν ὀρίνετoν ἰχθυόεντα17 ‘just as two winds stir
up the sea full of fishes’
RV IX 84.4c ... samudrám úd iyarti vāyúbhiḥ ‘(this soma) its liquid raises
(?)/stirs up the sea beneath the winds (vāyúbhiḥ)’
All this allows the reconstructing of an inherited phraseological pattern:
(by) WIND
ἄvεμoς
vāyú11
RAISE UP / STIR UP
ὀρινο/εúd ar/r̥
SEA
πόντoς
samudrá-
Cf. also Il. 19.363-4 ὑπὸ δὲ κτύπoς ὤρνυτo πoσσὶν / ἀνδρῶν.
Cf. also Od. 11.407 ὄρσας [scil. Poseidon] ἀργαλέων ἀvέμων ἀμέγαρτoν ἀυτμήν.
13
Gk. ἐφορμαο/ε- , a synonym of ὄρνυμι (*h3r̥-néu̯-), is in fact a denominative of
ὁρμή (*h3or-sméh2) of the same root (cf. denominative τιμάo/ε- ‘honour’ :: τίo/ε‘id.’).
14
Cf. also ὀρινομένη τε θάλασσα (Il. 2.294), ὅς τ᾿ ὤρινε θάλασσαν (Hes. Op. 676).
15
Nonetheless, both verbs are considered to be close semantically by the glosists, cf.
ὀρίνετον· ὥρμων (Hsch.). See also ὀρίνετον: δυϊκῶς, ὥρμων, ἐκίνουν (Ap.Soph.).
16
Cf. ἐτάραξε πόντoν / χερσὶ τρίαιναν ἑλὼν (Od. 5.292), Πoσειδάωνα ... γαίης
κινητῆρα καὶ ἀτρυγέτoιo θαλάσσης (HH. 22.1-2)
17
Cf. also Il.11.297/8 … ἶσος ἀέλλῃ / ἥ τε καθαλλομένη ἰοειδέα πόντον ὀρίνει.
12
José L. García Ramón
67
(3) ὀρσινεφής (Zeus) ‘who stirs up/wilds the clouds’: Pi. N. 5.34-5
ὀρσινεφὴς ... Ζεύς.
The epithet actually reflects *ὀρίνει/ὤρινε νέφος (expressed by means
of synonymes in Homer) better than *ὄρνυσι / ὦρσε. As in the case of
ὀρσίαλος, Homeric phraseology shows a combination of two actions: (a)
the god raises up the winds (Od. 9.67 ἐπῶρσ' ἄνεμoν Boρέην
νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς) and (b) the winds wild (κλονεο/ε-, στυφελιζο/ε-,
δονεο/ε-) the clouds. Τhis is evident in Il. 23.212ff:
…, τοὶ δ᾿ ὀρέοντο
ἠχῇ θεσπεσίῃ νέφεα κλονέοντε πάροιθεν.
αἶψα δὲ πόντον ἵκανον ἀήμεναι, ὦρτο δὲ κῦμα
πνοιῇ ὕπο λιγυρῇ· … ‘and they (scil. the winds) rose (ὀρέοντο) with a
wondrous din, stirring (κλονέοντε)18 the clouds in confusion / tumultuously
before them … and the wave rose (ὦρτο ... κῦμα) under the whistling wind’.
The contrast between (b) winds stirring clouds and waves risen up by
the actions of winds is straightforward. The situation in Vedic (ar/r̥) is
similar as seen in RV I 116.1b:
stómām̐ iyarmy abhríyeva vā́ taḥ ‘I raise songs of praise, like the wind
(raises [or wilds]) the clouds’).19
In this verse iyarmi matches the sense ‘raise’, ‘impel’ with stóma- as the
object, but its elliptic occurrence with abhríya- may reflect also the second
sense ‘to wild’ (: ὀρινο/ε-). This is clear in the case of the thunder, which
fulfills the very same activity in RV VI 44.12ab, as again the ‘rising up’
fulfilled by Indra with the presents: úd abhrā́ ṇīva stanáyann iyarti índro
rā́ dhāṃsi áśviyāni gávyā ‘like the thunder wilds the clouds, so let Indra the
equine and bovine presents rise up’. The following collocational pattern may
therefore be considered as inherited:
WIND
ἄvεμoς
vā́ ta-
18
RISE / STIR UP
ὀρινο/εar / r̥
CLOUD
νέφεα
abhrí-
Cf. also πυκνὰ Θρηικίου Βορέω νέφεα κλονέοντος (Hes. Op. 553). With other
verbs, cf. ὡς ὁπότε νέφεα Ζέφυρoς στυφελίξῃ (Il. 11.305), ἄνεμoς νέφεα δoνήσας (Il.
12.157).
19
Ved. abhríya-, a derivative of abhrá- ‘cloud’ (IE *n̥bh-ró-: Lat. imber), which is
currently kept apart from Gk. ἀφρός ‘foam, slaver’ because of the difference of
meaning.
68
Religious Onomastics
6. The epithet ὀρσοτρίαινᾰ, as a designation of Poseidon in Pindar
(4x), e.g. Ol. 8.48 ὀρσοτρίαινα δ’ ἐπ’ Ἰσθμῷ ποντίᾳ / ἅρμα θοὸν τάνυεν20
is transmitted in this form. The first member ὀρσο° was actually not felt to
be as remarkable by scholiasts and not deserving of any comment at all.
This strongly suggests that it was considered to be a mere variant of
*ὀρσι-τρίαινα, i.e. ‘who raises (: ὀρ-) the trident’ or ‘who whirls (ὀρινο/ε-)
the trident’: both senses fitting the image we have of the god21.
In fact, ὀρσοτρίαινα is forma difficilior, namely a possessive
compound of the type ἀγλαoτρίαινα ‘having a bright trident‘, εὐτρίαινα
‘having a goodly trident’ (both in Pindar) referring to the same god, with
ὀρσo° as its first member: the adjective matches Ved. r̥ṣvá- ‘high’ (: Av.
ǝrǝšuua- ‘id.’), which is also attested in compounds of the same type as
Ved. r̥ṣvá-vīra-‘having prominent men’, r̥ṣvaújas-‘having prominent
force’22. The epithet ὀρσοτρίαινα describes Poseidon as the god ‘who has
a high trident’ or ‘who keeps his trident high’ (in a horizontal position), as
he is widely depicted in Greek tradition (e.g. A. Pr. 924-5, Ar. Eq. 840)
and iconography. This matches the figure of the god who whirls the sea with
his trident (Od. 5.291-2 ἐτάραξε δὲ πόντον / χερσὶ τρίαιναν ἑλών, Od.
7.271-3 ... Πoσειδάων … ὤρινεν δὲ θάλασσαν, see § 5).
Nevertheless, ὀρσο-τρίαιναν could alternatively be understood as a
conventional “Doric” orthographic variant with <σ> for <θ> for a possessive
compound *ὀρθο-τρίαιναν ‘who keeps his trident standing upright’ (of the
type ὀρθóθριξ A. Ch. 32), which would actually match the collocation
τρίαιναν ὀρθὴν στᾶσαν in a fragment of Euripides’ Erecteus referring to
the dispute between Poseidon and Athena for the hegemony of Athens (F
360.47 Cropp-Collard: speaks Praxithea vv. 44 ff.):
οὐδ’ ἀντ’ ἐλάας χρυσέας τε Γοργόνος
τρίαιναν ὀρθὴν στᾶσαν ἐν πόλεως βάθροις
Εὔμολπος οὐδὲ Θρῇξ ἀναστέψει λεὼς
στεφάνοισι, Παλλὰς δ’ οὐδαμοῦ τιμήσεται. ‘… nor shall Eumolpos or his
Thracian folk crown a trident planted upright instead of the olive and the
golden Gorgon in the foundations of the city, nor dishonor Pallas’.
20
Also ὁ πόντιος Ὀρσ[oτ]ρίαινα (Pae. F 52k. 47), ὀρσοτρίαιναν εὐρυβίαν καλέων
θεόν (P. 2.12), N. 4.85-7.
21
However, the Scholia do not give any guidance on this point, for instance, Schol.
O. 8.61-70 (schol. rec.) ὁ ὀρσοτριαίνης δέ (64), ἤγουν ὁ Ποσειδῶν ὁ τὴν τρίαιναν
φέρων.
22
Cf. also Hom. ὀρσοθύρη ‘a door high up (or back) in the wall’, actually a
compound of the type ἀκρόπολις.
José L. García Ramón
69
Two facts may speak in favour of the interpretation as *ὀρθο-τρίαινα
‘having his trident upright’: (a) Greek traditions on the dispute make clear
that Poseidon hit the earth with his trident in a vertical position, making a
spring rise up (Paus. 1.24.3), as is also widely reflected in the
iconography23; (b) the expression τρίαιναν ὀρθὴν στᾶσαν obviously
reflects the inherited collocation Hom. στῆ δ’ ὀρθός (e.g. Il. 23.271 [et al.]
στῆ δ’ ὀρθὸς καὶ μῦθον ἐν Ἀργείοισιν ἔειπεν #), which is well attested also
in Vedic and Avestan, cf. RV II 30.3ab ūrdhvó hy ásthād ádhy antarikṣé
᾿dhā vr̥trā́ ya prá vadhám ‘... upright he stood up in the air and addressed
his weapon against Vr̥tra’, Yt. 13.76 yā̊ taδa ǝrǝduuā̊ hištǝṇta ‘those who
were standing upright’24.
In this assumption, the occurrence of <σ> for <θ> would reflect the
“Doric” convention, as seen in type σιός (: θεός), παρσένος (: παρθένος) in
the text of Alcman25. The possibility of conventional “Doric” spellings in
the text of Pindar is not excluded: this is, in my opinion, the case for the
forms ὥτε ‘as, like’ (*Hi̯ ō-), ὧτε ‘so’ (*sō-) as against ὥστε + infinitive
(4x), ὥς, ὥσπερ (instead of “Dor.” *ὥ, *ὥπερ), which actually reflect the
distribution attested in the text of Alcman, e.g. ὤτ’ ἄλιον fr. 1.41 (ϝ’ ὤτ᾿),
ὤ/τ’ ὄρνις 82.1/2 vs. τόσσος κόρος ὤστ’ἀμύναι 1.6426.
Nevertheless, the assumption of a compound *ὀρθο-τρίαινα, with
artificial “Doric” spelling, encounters a major difficulty: the epithet ὀρθός
is regularily attested with <θ> in the transmitted text of Pindar27, also in
the same construction as τρίαιναν ὀρθὴν στᾶσαν (see above): P. 3.53 ...
τοὺς δὲ τομαῖς ἔστασεν ὀρθούς ‘… and others he put upright (i.e. ‘raises
up’) with surgeries’.
This leaves as the only possibility for a putative basic form *ὀρθοτρίαινα, the assumption that ὀρσο° in ὀρσοτρίαινα reflects the crossing of
the formae faciliores ὀρσι° (*ὀρσι-τρίαινα ‘who raises/wilds the trident’)
and ὀρθο° (*ὀρθο-τρίαινα ‘who has the trident upright’). Anyway,
ὀρσοτρίαινα may simply mean ‘who keeps his trident high’ (: ὀρσο°
‘high’, Ved. r̥ṣvá- ‘id.’), i.e. in horizontal position, which was not
23
Cf. Hdt. 8.55; πλήξας τῇ τριαίνῃ (Apollod. 3.14), τύψεν Λυκτονίην γαίην χρυσῇ
τριαίνῃ (A. Orph. 1280), τὴν τρίαιναν ἔπηξεν (Schol. in E. Ph. 187). For the
iconography cf. the material of Simon 2004 in García Ramón 2011, 322 no.47.
24
Cf. Schmitt 1967, 248ff. for an extensive overview.
25
Hinge 2006, 70ff. The variant with <σ> is actually attested in Ar. Lys. 995-6 ὀρσὰ
Λακεδαίμων πᾶἁ (: ὀρθὴ ... πᾶσα) καὶ τοὶ σύμμαχοι / ἅπαντες ἐστύκαντι (: ἑστᾶσιν),
in the Pseudo-Laconian dialect of the Spartan ambassador.
26
García Ramón 1985, 94ff., 82ff.
27
ὀρθόμαντις (N. 1.61), ὀρθόβουλος (P. 4.262, 8.75), ὀρθοδίκας (P. 11.9),
ὀρθόπολις ‘who upholds (‘put upright’) the town’ (O. 2.7 ἄωτον ὀρθόπολιν).
70
Religious Onomastics
understandable within Greek and was reinterpreted as a formal variant of
ὀρσι°, which ultimately expressed the same content.
7. Let us turn to two literary epithets of Athena, ὀρσίμαχος ‘who raises /
stirs up the fight’ (Ba.) and Athena ἐγρεμάχη ‘who awakes the fight’
(HHCer.), which reflect phraseological patterns, attested in Greek and in
other languages, in which the second member μάχη, and other quasisynonymous terms (πόλεμος, φύλοπις, also μῆνις, νεῖκος ‘wrath, strife, also
ἔρις), to be subsumed under [EVIL], occur in collocations with (a) ὀρ- and (b)
ὀρινο/ε- (i.e. [RISE UP – EVIL] or [STIR UP – EVIL]), as well as with (c)
ἐγειρο/ε- [AWAKE – EVIL]: (a) and (b) are to be considered as stylistically
non-marked as against (c), which is marked.28 Both epithets in any case
reflect the characteristic image of the warrior goddess, who is otherwise
referred to as ἀγέστρατος (Hes., also Thess. λαγείταρρα as an epiclesis in
Larisa), ἐγχειβρόμος (Pi.), λαοσόος (Hom.), πάμμαχος (Ar.), περσέπολις
(Ar.), πολεμόκλονος (Batr.), πρόμαχος (AP).
The epithet ὀρσίμαχος of Athena in Ba. 15.3 --] Παλλάδος ὀρσιμάχου
reflects the phraseme [RISE UP – EVIL] with (a) ὀρ-, which is well attested,
also by means of synonyms of both the verb (Hom. ἀειρο/ε-, Att. αἰρο/ε- ‘to
lift up’) and often the object (πόλεμος, φύλοπις), with a human (Il. 9.353) or a
god (Il. 4.15-16) as subject:
Il. 9.353 οὐκ ἐθέλεσκε μάχην ἀπὸ τείχεος ὀρνύμεν Ἕκτωρ,29 ‘Hector
would not drive his attack beyond the wall’s shelter’.
Il. 4.15-6 ἤ ῥ’ αὖτις πόλεμόν τε κακὸν καὶ φύλοπιν αἰνὴν / ὄρσομεν,... ‘…
whether we again stir up grim warfare and the terrible fighting’ (Zeus to
Hera).
As to the continuity with ἀείρεσθαι /αἴρεσθαι (with people as the agent)
in Classical Greek, see Hdt. 7.132.2 oἱ Ἕλληνες … oἱ τῷ βαρβάρῳ πόλεμoν
ἀειράμεvoι, Thuc. 4.60.2 πόλεμον γὰρ αἰρομένων ἡμῶν, as well as
ἀερσίμαχ̣ος ‘who raises/stirs battle’ (Ba. 13.100 υἷας ἀερσιμάχ̣[ους, of Ajax
and Achilles).
Whether ὀρσι° in ὀρσίμαχος could also originally mean (b) ‘stir, agitate,
whirl’ must remain open. Anyway the collocation, expressed by κινεο/ε-,
is attested in Classical Greek (see Thuc. 6.34.4 δεόμενοι … τὸν ἐκεῖ
28
That it is about the same state of affairs is clear in the light of the glosses
explaining forms belonging to (or connected with) ὄρνυ-, namely ἔρσεο :
διεγείρου, ἔρσῃ : ὁρμήσῃ neben ὄρσο, ὄρσεο : ἐγείρου, ὄρσαι : ὀρμῆσαι ἤ
ἐγεῖραι ... (Hsch.).
29
As to μάχην ... ὀρνύμεν cf. MN Ὀρσίμαχος (Boeotia).
José L. García Ramón
71
πόλεμον κινεῖν, Pl. R. 566e πρῶτον μὲν πολέμους τινὰς ἀεὶ κινεῖ). The
expression, which is certainly banal, may be inherited in view of close
parallels with reflexes (or cognates) of *h3er- attested in Vedic (with ar / r̥,
both ‘to rise’ and ‘to whirl‘), in Latin (with intransitive orīrī, consurgere, and
transitive mouēre) and in Hittite (with arai-/arii̯ a-ḫḫi):30
RV 1.81.3ab yád udī́ rata ājáyo dhr̥ṣṇáve dhīyatedhánā ‘when fights31
arise, for the courageous the booty prize stands / has been placed’
Verg. Aen. 8.637 addiderat subitoque nouum consurgere bellum
Romulidis Tatioque seni Curibusque seueris ‘he had added that a new war had
suddenly arisen between the Romulids and the old Tatius and the strict men of
Cures’32.
KUB 12.62 xxii 7 Vs. 1 k]u-u-ru-riHI.A a-ra-iš-kat-ta-ri ‘enemities rise up
repeatedly‘33. Cf. also KUB 31.66 iv 4 TUKU.TUKU-an a-ra-a-i ‘he rouse
wrath’.
8. Athena is referred to as ἐγρεμάχη in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter
(HH 2.424 Παλλάς τ’ ἐγρεμάχη καὶ Ἄρτεμις ἰοχέαιρα), as well by later
authors34. A variant ἐγερσιμάχη (cf. ἐγρεμάχας· ἐγερσιμάχας (Hsch.) is also
attested in Late Poetry (AP 6.122 τίς νύ σε θῆκε θεᾷ δῶρον ἐγερσιμάχᾳ).35
The epithet conceals a collocation [AWAKE – EVIL (WAR)] which is
stylistically marked and may be assumed to reflect IE “Dichtersprache” on
the basis of it also occurring in Latin, and especially in Old Germanic
languages and in Armenian.36
The collocation is well attested in Greek since Homer, both with men
and gods as the subject and with μάχην, πόλεμον (Zeus!), Ἄρηα as the
object:
30
Lat. orīrī and Ved. ar / r̥ can almost certainly be traced back to *h3er- ‘rise up’.
Whether this applies to Hitt. arai-ḫḫi / arii̯ a- (with deletion of laryngeal in a De
Saussure context *h3or-) or to *h3rei̯ H- (Rix, LIV2) remains open to question at
this point.
31
Cf. Ved. ājí- ‘fight, dispute’, cf. Gk. ἀγών, OIr. āg ‘id.’.
32
Cf. also Aen. 1.148-9 cum saepe coorta est / seditio, 2.411 oriturque miserrima
caedes.
33
Cf. also KBo 5: 4 ii 21f. ma-an tu-uk-ma ku-iš-ki ... [LÚKÚR] a-ra-a-i ‘when an
enemy rises up against you’ (also KBo 17:151, v 4 Rs. 27).
34
Cf. σὺ δ’ εὐχόμενος Κρονίωνι / Παλλάδι τ’ ἐγρεμάχῃ γλαυκώπιδι καὶ Διὸς υἱῷ /
Φοίβῳ (D.S. 8.29.1 [oracle]), Παλλάδα τ’ ἐγρεμάχην κούρην (Orph.17.38). The
epithet is also referred to men, cf. ἐργεμάχαν / Θησέα (Soph. OC 1054-5).
35
The MN Ἐγέρτιος, Ἐγρέσις (Attica) may be considered as “short forms” of
compounds with a first member Ἐγερτι°, Ἐγρεσι° (cf. the gloss ἔγρετο· ἐγείρετο [ad
Il. 2.41] Hsch.) and a highly probable second member °μαχος.
36
Cf. García Ramón 2007 (extensive presentation of the Latin material).
72
Religious Onomastics
Il. 13.778 ἐξ οὗ γὰρ παρὰ νηυσὶ μάχην ἤγειρας ἑταίρων, ‘for since that time
when by the ships you [775 Ἕκτορ] wakened the battle of our companions
…’ (also Hes. Th. 713 … μάχην δριμεῖαν ἔγειραν). Cf. also Il. 20.31 Ὣς
ἔφατο Κρονίδης, πόλεμον δ’ ἀλίαστον ἔγειρε, Il. 2.440 ἴομεν, ὄφρα κε
θᾶσσον ἐγείρομεν ὀξὺν Ἄρηα.
The same collocation occurs in Latin, although expressed in other terms,
namely by compounds of citō, -āre ‘to put in motion’, ‘to whirl, agitate’37,
both in poetry (suscitāre, excitāre with caedem, iras, irarum aestus, mollem
belli as the object) and in prose (suscitāre with bellum, iras, seditionem)38.
Aen. 12.497-8 terribilis saeuam nullo discrimine caedem / suscitat, ...‘he
frightful and indiscriminately stirs a terrible slaughter up …’. See also Liv.
21.10.3 ... obtestans ne Romanum cum Saguntino suscitarent bellum.
The use of ºcitāre points to a lexical renewal of inherited IE *h1g̑er(: ἐγείρειν, Ved. jár-a-te, with perf. ἐγρήγορα : Ved. jāgā́ ra, YAv. jaγāra),
the reflex of which is expergere ‘to awake’, expergēfacere ‘id.’, which is
not attested for [AWAKE – EVIL].39 The collocation in Latin poetry could a
priori be due to Greek influence but its occurrence also in Prose seems,
however, to speak in favour of an inherited phraseological pattern, which
made its way into the former language.
Old Germanic languages are rich with the same collocation, namely with
the verb PGmc. *wakja-: OE weccean, ONors. vekja (with víg ‘fight
/struggle’, hilde ‘id.’, vǫ ‘evil’), also Goth. us-wakjan “ἐξυπνίζω”, OSax
wekkian, OHG weckan “excitare, suscitare” (Gloss.).40 Some instances from
Old English and Old Norse are:
Beow. 2044/6 onginneð geōmor-mōd geongum cempan
þurh hreðra gehyad, higes cunnian
wīgbealu weccean ...
37
Frequentative citāre actually reflects the meaning of ciēre (causat. *koi̯ -e i̯ eo/e‘put in violent motion’) which matches the collocations of Gk. κινεῖν.
38
Cf. e.g. quantam ... molem excitarit belli Paris (Acc. trag. 610). In prose, cf.
magnas excitari … iras (Liv. 3.40.5),... multi temere excitati tumultus sunt
26.10.10), also 6.27.9, 27.8.1.
39
From Lat. *exper-g-o/e-, beside expergīscī ‘to become awake’ : YAv. fra-γrisa-,
by dissimilation from *°per-gro/e-, *°per-grisco/e-. Anyway Lat. °pergere still
survives in Span. despertar.
40
Cf. Lat. uegēre ‘to vivify, excite’ (vs. uigēre ‘to be strong’ : stat. * u̯°g-ē-), Ved.
vāj-áya-ti ‘id.’ (RV +) which actually continues IE causat. *u̯og̑-éi̯ o/e- ‘to make live’
(RV+) as against stat.*u̯eg̑-ē- ‘be vivified, excited’ (Watkins 1973: 490).
José L. García Ramón
73
‘he began, sad in mind, through his heart and thought to test the spirit of a
young warrior, to awake the evil of war’.
Rþ 38.3 víg nam ... at vekja ‘he began, to awake the fight’.41
An identical collocation is attested in Armenian (zart‘ean
paterazmownk‘), as Daniel Kölligan has kindly pointed out to me: yor
yawowrs mer zart‘ean paterazmownk‘ ič‘oric‘ kołmanc‘ ‘in our days wars
awake in all four (heaven) directions’ (Aristakes Lastiverc‘i, 1st AD).
To sum up: in the light of comparative evidence, it may be stated that the
epithet ἐγρεμάχη of Athena (HHCer.), like its late variant ἐγερσιμάχη,
reflects a marked phraseological pattern which may be traced back to IE
poetic language.
9. The compounded epithet Ἑριβόας ‘loud-shouting’, in fact ‘having
high louds’42, is explicitely used, like Βρόμιος, as a designation of
Dionysus43 by Pindar (Dith. F 75.12):
ἐπὶ τὸν κισσοδαῆ θεόν, / τὸν Βρόμιον, τὸν Ἑριβόαν τε βροτοὶ καλέομεν ‘to
that ivy-knowing god, whom we mortals call Bromios and Eriboas (LoudRoarer, Loud-Shouter).
The collocation [HIGH – SHOUT] underlying the epithet actually reflects a
well known peculiarity of the god, like contiguous βρόμιος ‘noisy sounding’,
ἐριβρεμέτης (HOrph.), ἐρίβρομος (HH 7.56, 26.1, Anacr.), πυρίβρομος
(Nonn.). Its structure as a possessive compound is straightforward: the first
member ἐρι° is synonymous of μεγα°, ἀγα°, ὑψι° (cf. ἐρι· πολὺ μέγα.
ἰσχυρόν Hsch.), namely a loc. *ser-I of *ser- ‘top, upper point’ (Hitt. šēr
‘on, over’, direct. šarā, Lyc. hriº)44.
The collocation is expressed by means of synonymous μέγα (Hom.
μέγα βοήσας): Il. 17.334 ἔγνω ἐς ἄντα ἰδών, μέγα δ’ Ἕκτορα εἶπε βοήσας
‘(Aeneas) recognized (sc. Apollo) when he saw his face and called aloud
41
Cf. also Akv 15.3 at vekja gram hilde ‘to awake the thorny struggle’.
Its second member, °βόας, is actually βοᾱ́ ‘shout, clamor’, not an
agentive °βόος), like °δουπος, °κτυπος in Hom. ἐρί(γ)δουπος ‘id.’, ἐρίκτυπος ‘of
high bang’.
43
See also ἐριβόας κᾶρυξ of Hermes (AP).
44
As per Willi 1999. ἐρι° 'high, to a high degree’ has Ionic-Homeric psilosis for
*ἑρι°.
42
74
Religious Onomastics
in a great shout to Hector’45. This is also recognizable in the redundant
expression γόον ὀξυβόαν, including the quasi synonym γόος (cf. infra), in
A. Ag. 56-58 ὕπατος δ’ ἀίων ἤ τις Ἀπόλλων / ἢ Πὰν ἢ Ζεὺς οἰωνόθροον /
γόον ὀξυβόαν τῶνδε μετοίκων ‘...or some Apollo on high or Pan, or Zeus,
hearing the loud shrill wailing cries of the birds’.
The epithet Ἐριβόας helps to interpret the Mycenaean personal name
e-ri-ko-wo (PY An 656.2, Ep 212.2, Jn 845.7, Jn 944) as /Eri-gowos/
‘weeping aloud’46, i.e. *‘having high weeping’ (: γόος ‘weeping, lament’).47
It must be stated that shout (βοή) and lamentation (γόος), two words not
in fact etymogically connected48, have some features in common: (a)
someone raises them up (ὄρνυσι, ὦρσε), and (b) both stand (perf. ὄρωρε,
ὀρώρει) high (μέγας, i.e. ‘aloud’). This is shown by collocational
coincidences attested in Homer and in Poetry:
As to (a) cf. Od. 17. 46 … μή μοι γόον ὄρνυθι, Pi. P. 3.102/3 ὦρσεν … / ἐκ
Δαναῶν γόον. The same applies to the ‘desire for lamentation’ (ἵμερος
45
The βοή is raised up by the utterer and remains in the high (ὀρώρει), cf. Il.
11.530 βοὴ δ’ ἄσβεστος ὄρωρεν ‘and the ceaseless clamour has risen / is at the
highest’ (also 11.500 with ὀρώρει).
46
Actually ‘the one who has loud weepings’, better than /Eri-kōwos/ ‘having a big /
high fleece’ (cf. Myc. ko-wo /kōwos/ ‘fleece’, Hom. κῶας) instead of regular /Erikōwēs/, which is formally possible, cf. Ἐρί-ανθος besides Ἐρι-άνθης, probably
Myc. pe-ra-ko /Pherakos/ or /Pherākos/ : PN Φέρακος), Hom. μέγαν κῶας (García
Ramón 2012).
47
The basic meaning of γόος is *‘shouting, affected speaking’ cf. γόης ‘wizard’
(PGk. *gou̯ā-t-).
48
Gk. γόος ‘lamentation’ from *góu̯h2-o-, cf. γοάω from *gou̯h2-éi̯ o/e- (Hackstein
2003, 192-3, or denominative of γόος), IE *geu̯h2-, cf. Ved. “intensive” jóguve
‘calls repeatedly’, OHG gi-kewen ‘call’ and ‘loud’ (OHG kūma ‘lament’). The
meaning and collocations of βοάω do not match those of γοάω, and are basically
coincident with those of IE *g̑heu̯H- ‘shout, call’ (Ved. hvā, OCS zъvati and Toch.
kwā-). I would temptatively suggest that βοάω is a non-strictly phonetic outcome of
IE *g̑heu̯h2-, namely of intensive *g̑huh2-éi̯ o/e-. This would allow the absence of a
counterpart of Ved. havi- (hváya- ti) to be ignored: βοάω would match Ved. hváya-ti :
Av. zβaiia-ti and could be ultimately traced back to IE *g̑huh2-éi̯ o/e-, which would
have yielded +φάο/ε- (homophonous with Hom. φάε ‘was visible’: *bhéh2-e-t) and
have been remodelled as +φοάο/ε- (by formal similaritywith γοάο/ε-) and
onomatopoetically to βοάο/ε-, as I have previously tried to demonstrate (García
Ramón 2010: 95ff.). Aliter Hackstein, loc.cit, who operates with the “Schwebeablaut”
variants *geu̯h2- and *gu̯eh2-, reflected as γοάο/ε- (*gou̯h2-éi̯ o/e-) and βοάο/ε(*gu̯oh2-éi̯ o/e-) respectively: this is formally in order and remains a good explanation,
but the semantic and collocation of both Greek verbs remain different.
José L. García Ramón
75
γόοιο)49: Il. 23.14 ... μετὰ δέ σφι Θέτις γόου ἵμερον ὦρσε (also .108, 153,
Od. 16.216).
As to (b) cf. μέγαν γόον (HHDem. 82/3 ἀλλὰ θεὰ κατάπαυε μέγαν γόον
‘yet, goddess, cease your loud lament’ and ἐρικλάγκταν γόον, s. above),
which is parallel to Hom. μέγα βοήσας, and ἐρικλάγκταν γόον (Pi. P. 12.21
ὄφρα τὸν Εὐρυάλας … / … μιμήσαιτ’ ἐρικλάγκταν γόον ‘so that she might
imitate …the echoing/loud sounding wail of Euriale’). The overlap of γόος
and βοή is evident in light of the Aeschylean γόον ὀξυβόαν (cf. supra).
To sum up: the epithet ἐριβόας ‘having high louds’ of Dionysus (Pindar)
reflects poetic phraseology and allows the elucidation of the Mycenaean MN
e-ri-ko-wo as /Eri-gowos/ ‘having high lamentations’ (cf. ἐρικλάγκταν γόον
Pind.) on the strength of the semantic overlap of βοή ‘loud’ and γόος ‘lament’
in Greek.
10. Lat. opitulus is quoted as an epithet of Iuppiter by Festus (p. 184
M.): opitulus Iuppiter, et opitulator dictus est, quasi opis lator.
The form is currently explained as the compound opi-tulus
(*opi-tl̥ h2-o-50: ops ‘help’, °tulus ‘who brings’; cf. perf. [te]tulī of ferō) and
interpreted as ‘who brings’. The two forms given as synonymous by
Festus do actually exist: opitulus (cf. sodalis opitulator, App. Flor. 3, p.
353) underlies the denominative opi-tulor, -ārī (Cato, Plaut.+;
active -ō, -āre Liv. Andr.) with the current meaning of ‘to give
help/assistance’, also ‘bring relief to someone’s plight’. As to lator
‘proposer, mover’ (of suffrage, Cic.+), it is attested as terminus technicus;
nonetheless, opis lator is not directly supported by direct textual evidence.
The sense ‘help, aid’ of ops (type ope mea, ope eius,51 Acc. inc. 5 W.
quorum genitor fertur esse ops gentibus52) is secondary as compared
49
The same applies to thud (δοῦπος), which, like γόος or βοή, is mentioned as
μέγας and as rising up ὄρνυτο, ὀρώρει), cf. ... · τοῖος γάρ κε μέγας ὑπὸ δοῦπος
ὀρώρει (Hsd. Th. 703 = fr. 158.1) or in the formula / δοῦπος ὀρώρει // (Il. 9.574,
12.289, Hes. Th. 70) and 16.635 ὥς τῶν ὄρνυτο δοῦπος.
50
Of the type foedi-fragus, sacri-legus (Bader 1962, 17, 125; Lindner 1996, 76;
Livingston 2004, 57 ff.). The MN ᾿Οπίτωρ, Ὀπιτώριος can with difficulty be
interpreted as “short forms” /Opitor-/ of opitulus, i.e. /-tor-/ (: opi-tulus), or /-or-/
(: opit-ulus), of the Greek type Κάσ-τωρ (καστι° : κέκασμαι), Νέστωρ
(Νεστι° : νέομαι). This possibility, though, lacks practically any support in Italic
(perhaps Stator, beside Statius to a putative *Stāt[i]°, as per Weiss, Handout).
51
Cf. nisi quid mi opis di dant, disperii (Pl. Cist. 671) ‘if the gods do not give me
some help, I am lost’, ope consilioque tuo (Cic. Nat.deor. 3.74).
52
Prisc. Gl.Lat. II 321.24 glosses ops in this passage as opem ferens et auxilium,
but stresses that it meant opulentus in Archaic Latin. This is actually a confusion
with the back-formed adjective ops (Livingston 2004: 60).
76
Religious Onomastics
against the original ‘wealth, resource’, whence ‘abundance’, ‘might’,53
although it is already attested in Old Latin: there is therefore no major
difficulty for an interpretation of opi° as ‘help’ in opitulus. In fact, the
term is used as the name of the goddess Ops (also nom. Opis in Plaut.
Bacch. 893)54, wife of Saturn and mother of Zeus (Pl. Mil. 1082 … quam
Iuppiter ex Ope natust). It underlies, moreover, the epithet Opigena ‘the
midwife’55 of her daughter Juno, which cannot be separated from Iupiter
opitulus.
However, an interpretation of opi-tulus as ‘who brings help’, i.e. as a
synonym of opi-fer (Ennius+)56 is not without its difficulties:
(1) Lat. opifer ʻwho brings help’ occurs with healing deities e.g. Diana
(DIANAI OPIFER.(AE) ǀ NEMORENSEI CIL1,1480 [Tivoli]), Phoebus (deus…
opifer Ov. met. 1.521f. opiferque per orbem / dicor of (: Aesculapius),
Fortuna (FORTUNAE OPIFERAE 14.3539). Lat. opifer obviously reflects the
construction opem ferre ‘bring help’ which is actually attested, cf. Ter.
And. 473 Iuno Lucina, fer opem, serua me, obsecro ‘help me, save me, I
beseech you’.
The coexistence of opifer and opitulus with the very same sense
‘brings’ (of suppletive ferō :: (te)tulī) is in fact exceptional: we do not
have clear instances of two agentive compounds having in common the
first member and the suppletive stems of infectum and perfectum in the
second member.57 For this reason, one would expect for the
agentive °tulus, at least originally, the sense of (°)tollō, -ere ʻto rise up,
53
A third sense of ops, as a synonymous of opulentum (P.F. 191 M. ops antiqui
dicebant opulentum, unde e contrario inops (v.l. quem nunc opulentum, ut
testimonio est, non solum ei contrarium inops …) may be as an isolated backformation from inops.
54
Cf. P. Fest. p.186/7: Opima spolia dicuntur originem quidem trahentia ab Ope
Saturni uxore; …Itaque illa quoque cognominatur Consiua, et esse existimatur
terra. Ideoque in Regia colitur a populo Romano quia omnes opes humano generi
terra tribuat.
55
Iuno Opigena is the tutelar goddess of lying-in women cf. Opigenam Iunonem
matronae colebant, quod ferre eam opem in partu laborantibus credebant (Fest., p.
200 M.).
56
Trag. 124 Ribb : †o pie eam secum aduocant [cj. fidem] opiferam sociam
aduocant Vahlen, omnes secum aduocant Heinsius]).
57
It has been assumed that Lat. grātulāre goes back to *grāti-tulāre (: grātēs ferre)
with a compound *gratulus (*grati-tulus), and that postulāre is the outcome of
*po(r)sci-tulāre (: *porscam ferre). Even if this is so (discussion in Mignot 1969,
317), the fact is that only *grātulus may be assumed, and there is no trace of
*grātifer.
José L. García Ramón
77
increaseʼ, perf. sustulī (IE *telh2-), namely ‘who rises up’, not that of
(te)tulī ‘I have brought’ (: ferō).
(2) opi° may conceal not only ops ‘help’, but also plur. opēs
ʻresourcesʼ58. In other compounds opi° may also conceal opus ‘work,
performance’, e.g. opifex ‘artificer, craftsman’ (Plaut. +), opificium
ʻwork(ing)ʼ, opificus ʻhandworkerʼ. Iuppiter is referred to as opifex
aedificatorque mundi deus (Cic. nat.deor. 1.8.18, Ov.), opifex rerum
(Lucan), opifex rerum aeternus (Col. 3.10.10).
In fact, the occurrence of opitulor, -ārī in close vicinity with opēs,
inopia speaks in favor of opēs ‘resources’ as the first member of opi-tulus,
which may be interpreted as ‘who rise up the resources/power(s)’:59
Liv. Andr. 20-22 W.
Da mihi
hasce opes, quas peto, quas precor! Porrige,
opitula! ‘grant to me the powers for which I ask, and pray! hold them out,
bring me help!’
Cf. also Plaut. Curc. 332ff. ... noluit frustrarier, / ut decet velle hominem
amicum amico, atque opitularier: / ... / quod tibi est item sibi esse,
magnam argenti inopiam. ‘... he didn`t want to dissapoint you, he wanted
to do the proper things between friends and help you ... what is common to
you and to him, a major lack of funds’, Sall. Cat. 33.2.1 saepe maiores
vostrum, miserti plebis Romanae, decretis suis inopiae eius opitulati sunt
‘your forefathers often took pity on the Roman commons and relieved their
necessities by decrees’ (it is also remembered that because of their debts propter magnitudinem aeris alieni- it was allowed to pay silver in copper argentum aere solutum est).
These passages suggest that the help implied by opitulāre could in the
first instance be of a fairly concrete type, in the form of opēs ‘resources’
(as against inopia), which should grow. This seems to be confirmed by the
invocation to Iuppiter in Plaut. Capt. 768:
Iuppiter supreme, seruas me measque auges opes;
maximas opimitates opiparasque offers mihi. ‘O Iuppiter, on high, thou
dost preserve me and make prosper my resources! Your highest and
58
According to Livingston 2004, 57ff., the form goes back to IE *h1ep- cf.
epula(e) ʻbanquetʼ, *ʻa religious performanceʼ.
59
The sense ‘bring help’ is clear, in spite of ex opibus summis in Plaut. Mil. 620-1
ea te expetere ex opibus summis mei honoris gratia / mihique amanti ire
opitulatum ‘for me to look to you to help me with all your might, out of regard for
me, and to have you aiding me in my love affair’.
78
Religious Onomastics
splendid abundance, do offer to me!’, in close parallel with Ter. And. 473
Iuno Lucina, fer opem, serua me, obsecro. Iuppiter is also invoked in this
sense in Pl. Poen.1164-5 magne Iuppiter, / restitue certas mi ex incertis
nunc opes. ‘now make my happiness turn from uncertain to certain!’
To sum up: Iuppiter opitulus ‘who brings help’ meant originally ‘who
increase, rise up the resources’ (opēs), and °tulus reflects the original
meaning of tollō ‘rise, increase’.
II. Non-Compounded Compared to Compounded Divine
Names and Phraseology
11.A divine epithet related to a given reality or activity presents the
deity as being connected with the same characteristic, e.g. Zeus Kεραύνιος
(Elis, Thessaly, et al.; Orph.) (: κεραυνός ‘thunderbolt’). When the
substantive is used as epithet, one may assume that the deity is identified
with the reality it denotes: this is, for instance, the case of Zeus Κεραυνός
and Zeus Στóρπας (or Στορπᾶς (cf. στροπά, στορπά ‘lightening’, a
synonym of ἀστραπή, στεροπή and ἀστεροπή). The connection of
κεραυνός with βροντή, βρόμος and with ἀστραπή, στεροπή ‘lightening’
and its variants is well known, see Hes. Th. 853-4 Ζεὺς δ’(ὲ)..., εἵλετο δ’
ὅπλα, / βροντήν τε στεροπήν τε καὶ αἰθαλόεντα κεραυνόν60.
(1) Zeus Κεραυνός IG 5:2. 288 (Arcadia, Mantinea) fits the pattern of
other epithets61 which reflect his mastering of the thunderbolt62 (cf.
Od.12.416 [ναῦς] ἡ δ’ ἐλελίχθη πᾶσα Διὸς πληγεῖσα κεραυνῷ):
ἀργῐκέραυνος ‘with bright thunderbolt (lightning)’ (Il.19.121+) and
τερπικέραυνος ‘enjoying the thunderbolt’ (Il. 6.232, Od. 20, 75+),
ἐγχεικέραυνος ‘hurling the thunderbolt with his spear’ (Pi. P. 4.194, O.
13.77+) and κεραυνεγχής ‘with a thunderbolt as spear’ (ὦ Ζεῦ
κ[ε]ραυνεγχές Ba. 8.26), also κεραυνοβρόντης ‘thunderer like thunderbolt’
60
Also ἀστράπτων ἔστειχε συνωχαδόν, οἱ δὲ κεραυνοὶ / ἴκταρ ἅμα βροντῇ τε καὶ
ἀστεροπῇ ποτέοντο (Th. 690-1), as well as Διὸς βροντῶντος καὶ Ἀστράπτοντος
(Thera IG 12:3 supp., 1359), ἀστραπὴ ἐξ αἰθρίης καὶ βροντὴ ἐγένετο (Hdt. 3.86).
61
Cf. the rich list of epithets by Schwabl 1978, 253ff.
62
κεραυνός is a formally non direct continuant of IE *Perkwūno- ‘the one who has
[is connected with] the oak’ (*perkwu-: Lat. quercus, Celt. Herkynia silva, ethnic
Querquerni (Hispania): OLth. perkúnas ‘Thunder(god)’, ORuss. Perunŭ ‘id.’.
José L. García Ramón
79
(Ar. Pax 376) and κεραυνο-βόλος ‘hurling the thunder’ IG 5:2, 37
(Arcadia,Tegea; also Ant.Pal., Orph.).63
(2) Zeus Στóρπᾱς (not +Στóρπαoς) is attested in Arcadia (gen. Διος
Στορπαō IG 5:2. 64.13, Tegea, 5th C.), where his cult is indirectly referred
to by Pausanias64. The term στορπά ‘lightening’, like στροπά (with
metathesis), is certainly a variant of ἀστραπή, (ἀ)στεροπή, whatever its
etymology might be, as shown by the glosses στροπά· ἀστραπή. Πάφιοι
(Hsch.) and στορπάν· τὴν ἀστραπήν. στροφαί· ἀστραπαί (Herod.), στραπή·
ἀστραπή (EM 514.32), στεροπὴ· ἀστραπή. αὐγή ὥσ(τε) στεροπή· ἀστραπή
(Hsch). All this points to an interference with ἀστεροπή and στεροπή
(Hom. +), ἀστραπή ‚id.‘ (Hdt. +), cf. ἀστράπτειν (Hom. +), στράπτω
‚id.‘ (Soph. +). All these terms are also present in epithets of Zeus, among
them ἀστεροπητής ‘lightener’ (Il. 1.580 +), Στεροπηγερέτα ‘getherer of
lightenings’ (Il. 16.298, cf. Il. 11.66 στεροπὴ πατρὸς Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο,65 and
Il. 13.242 … ἀστεροπῇ …, ἥν τε Κρονίων / … ἐτίναξεν ἀπ’ αἰγλήεντος
᾽Ολύμπου), also Ἀστραπαῖος (Athens, Antandros, Bithynia), Ἀστραπάτας
(Rhodos), ἀστράπιος, ἀστράπτων (Orph.).
A new epithet of Ennodia in Thessaly, namely Στροπικα, must be
added to the family of Arcadian Zeus Στóρπᾱς. The epithet occurs in a
recently published dedication from Larisa with the text Εννοδια: Στροπικα
(SEG 54: 561 3rd quarter 5thC.)66. The epithet Στροπικά ‘the one of the
thunder(bolt) is a derivative in -ικό/ά- of *στροπά ‘lightening’ / στορπά),
of the type ἀρχικός (: ἀρχή), νυμφικός (: νύμφη), and Μυκαικά (: μύκη·
θήκη), also an epithet of Ennodia in Thessaly67. The epithet matches the
image of Ennodia as the goddess with a light in her hand68.
63
Cf. the passive epithet κεραυνόβολος ‘thunder-stricken’ (of Semele, E. Ba. 598
[lyr.], D. S. 1.13).
64
Dubois 1986, I 44-5, II 13 (with an incorrect assumption of an epithet
Στόρπαος). Paus. 8.29.1 λέγουσι δὲ οἱ Ἀρκάδες … καὶ θύουσιν ἀστραπαῖς αὐτόθι
καὶ θυέλλαις τε καὶ βρονταῖς.
65
Cf. also Il. 9.580, 10.154, Hsd. Th. 390 +.
66
The reading is certainly ΣΤΡΟΠΙΚΑ (as proved by Helly in García RamónHelly 2012: 58-59), not ΣΤΡΟΓΙΚΑ, which was explained by the first editor as a
variant of a non-attested *Στοργικά to στέργω ‘love’ (Chrysostomou 2001, 12,
2002, 204ff.).
67
García Ramón-Helly 2012, 64ff.
68
Cf. φωσφόρος (Thera, Rhodos), with a torch in the hand, like Hekate (cf. Eur.
Hel. 569 ὦ φωσφόρ’ ῾Εκάτη, πέμπε φάσματ’ εὐμενῆ; IG 4:1, 542).
80
Religious Onomastics
12. When the divine epithet is a derivative, its meaning may be more
or less clear and match more or less clearly some pecularity of the god.
But the derivative is by itself obviously less explicit than a compound, as
the latter expresses a verbal phrase, with indication of an object, or a
nominal phrase with explicit marking by preverbs. A very illustrative case
is that of the derivative Κορουταρρα, epithet of En(n)odia (prob. Larisa,
3rd/2nd C.) and παιδοκόρης, epithet of Hermes (Metapont).
The goddess Ἐν(ν)οδία (Thessaly, also Macedonia) is referred to as
Κορουταρρα (in dative) in a Thessalian dedication (SEG 51: 739, prob.
Larisa, 3rd/2nd C.).69: Εννοδια Κορουταρρα.
The analysis of Thess. Κορουταρρα is straightforward as to its
structure: it reflects the Thessalian outcome of PGk. *korō-t(e)ri̯ a-70 (: Att.
*κορώτρια), a feminine agent noun of the type χρυσώτρια ‘gilder’ i.e. ‘who
provides with gold (: χρυσός)’. Its meaning may be ‘who provides with
growth’ (κόρος: *k̑órh1-o-) better than ‘with foddering’ (κόρος: *k̑órh3-o-)71,
both of which certainly fit the pattern of the kourotrophic figure of the
goddess, who was later assimilated by Artemis (and by Hekate).
Thess. κορου- reflects a basis κορω- (instr. *kor(H)o-h1)72 of the action
noun κόρος ‘growth’, beside which an agent noun °κόρος (*k̑orh1-ó- ‘who
69
The text has been recently published by Chrysostomou 2001: 11-20, figure 1.
Thess. -ταρρα is the regular outcome of *-tr°i̯ a from *-trii̯ a with secondary
yotisation of /i/ (Att. -τρια, Ηom. -τειρα, Lesb. -τερρα, Μyc. -ti-ri-ja / -ti-ra2), with
nom. *-tria, gen. *-triās: IE *-trii̯ h2, gen. *-trii̯ éh2s), as attested in the epithet of
Athena Λα[γει]ταρρα (Helly 1970, 10-11). Thess. °αγειταρρα (: °αγήτρια)
“conductrice d’armées” Helly 1970, 250-1, 262ff.) reflects ἄγω not ἡγέομαι, cf. the
epithets ἀγέστρατος (Hes. Th. 925 Τριτογένειαν… ἀγέστρατον).
71
Gk. κόρος ‘foddering’ (of animals, also of persons:*k̑órh3-o-, but aor. *k̑erh3-s- cf.
Hom. κορεσ(σ)α- with Ruipérez’s metathesis), also ‘satiety, surfeit’, is attested at
different times and levels: (a) ‘animal fourrage’ in the new tablets from Thebes TH
Ft(1) 218 .1 ka-pa , ṣị-ṭọ , ko-ro-qe[ / .2 a-ko-da-mo V 2 ka-si[, where ko-ro /koros/
is the opposite of si-to (: σῖτον) ‘human food’ (García Ramón 2010b: 82f.) with
reference to Lith. šeriù (šérti) ‘fodder animals’, Αἰγικόρος epiclesis of Pan (Nonn.
D. 14.75), Ionian tribe Αἰγικορεῖς, eponymous hero Αἰγικορεύς (Hdt., E., inscr.).
(b) ‘arrogance’ in Poetry: Pi. O. 2.95 f. αἶνον ἐπέβα κόρος οὐ δίκα συναντόμενος,
O. 13.10 ὕβριν κόρου ματέρα, C.Thgn. 153 τίκτει τοι κόρος ὕβριν.
72
Instrumental basis in -ω-, e.g. στεφανω- ‘with a crown’, χολω- ‘with bile’
underlie in fact the system established by Tucker 1990 for the verbs with aor. -ωσα-, pres. -όο/ε- (στεφανω- ‘provide with a crown’, χολω- ‘fill with bile’, which
also includes fut. -ωσο/ε-, pass. aor. -ωθη-, perf. -ωται (ptc. -ωμένος), verbal
adjective -ωτός (post-Hom. pres. -όο/ε- : *-ō-i̯ o/e-), e.g. χολω- ‘provide with bile’ :
χολωσα-, χολωσο/ε-, χολωθη-, perf. κεχόλωται (ptc. κεχωλομένος beside
[°]χολωτός). pres. χολοῦται (Class. Gk.). The type is already attested in Myc. qeqi-no-me-no ‘decorated’, i.e. *‘vivified’ (: *provided with qi-no ‘vivification’).
70
José L. García Ramón
81
makes grow up’ better than and *k̑orh3-ó- ‘who fodders’)73 may be safely
assumed (s. below). The assumption of a derivational basis PGk. *korōunderlying an agent noun *korō-tḗr (*κορωτήρ), fem. *korṓ-tria (: Thess. –
ουταρρα: *-ō-tr̥i̯ a) finds support in a series of nouns in -ωτήρ (and Att.
Ion. -ωτής), fem. -ώτρια:
κορσωτήρ ‘barber’ (Call.) cf. κορσοῦν · κείρειν, ἀπο-κορσόομαι (A.).
κομμώτρια ‘dresser, tirewoman’, κομμωτής ‘(hair)dresser‘,‘valet’ (Arr., +),
cf. κομμός ‘hair dress’, κομμόω/ομαι ‘to beautify’.
χρυσώτρια, χρυσωτής ‘gilder’ (aet.imp.) :: χρυσός, χρυσόομαι,
κεχρυσωμένος.
μορφώτρια ‘(a goddess) who changes (scil. ‘men into swine’ E. Tr. 437),
cf. μορφή ‘form, shape’, μορφόω ‘to give shape/form to’.
The agent noun Thess. κορουταρρα does not in itself make explicit
what the object of En(n)odia’s activity is and, therefore, its exact meaning
remains hypothetical, either ‘who provides with growth’ or ‘with
foddering’. At this point the compound παιδοκόρης, an epithet of Hermes
in Metapont (παιδοκόρης Ἑρμῆς τιμᾶται ἐν Μεταποντίοις Hsch.) is a great
help, as it allows the recognition of the children as the most plausible
object of Ennodia’s activity (she is of course a characteristically
kourotrophic deity), and dissipates any doubt about the meaning of
κορουταρρα as ‘the one who makes grow’.74
In conclusion: The compound παιδοκόρης allows the sense of the agent
noun Thess. κορουταρρα (:*κορώτρια) to be specified. Both terms stand in
the same relation as Myc. da-mo-ko-ro /dāmo-koro-/ ‘who makes grow up
(°*k̑orh1-o-) the community’ or ‘who nourishes (°*k̑orh3-o-) the
community’75 and ko-re-te /korē-ter/ or /korĕ-ter/ ‘nourisher’, or as Ved.
r̥ṇa-yā́ - and yātár- (of Ιndra) : Gk. Ζᾱτήρ (of Zeus), s. below 12).
13. The epithet Ζητήρ· Ζεὺς ἐv Κύπρῳ, as transmitted by Hesychius with
explicit geographic indication, may be interpreted both within Greek itself,
where there are a few terms which cannot be unrelated to it, as well as in light
of comparison, especially with Ved. yā́ tár- ‘avenger’, an epithet of Indra in
Rig Veda, as I have previously tried to show (1999).
73
The form may be traced back in pure formal terms to two IE roots, namely to
*ḱerh1- ‘to grow up’ (also ‘to be born, created’), with causative ‘to make grow’ (also
‘to create’) and to *ḱerh3- ‘nourish, feed’.
74
Cf. also κρησίπαιδα . ἐν Θαμιακῇ θυσίᾳ ... μέρη ἱερείων (Hsch.).
75
As against δημοβόρος βασιλεύς (Il. 1. 231), or δημοφάγον ... τύραννον (C.Thgn.
1181).
82
Religious Onomastics
(1) The Greek evidence is scanty and limited to some glosses, all referring
to the semantic field of inquiry and punition (and execution), which allow for
the assumption of the existence of an agent noun ζητρός*, or ζήτωρ (like
Ζητήρ): ζητρόν· τὸν δαμόκoινoν, ζητόρων· ζητoύντων, γράφoυσι δὲ ἔνιoι
ζητητόρων (Hsch.), ζητόρων· ζητητῶν (Phot.), also ζήτρειoν· τὸ τῶν δoύλωv
κoλαστήριov (Hsch. Phot. with references to Theop., Eup., Herod.), ζατρεύω·
ἐv μυλῶνι βασανίζω (ΕΜ). This last form, with its <α>, and the references to
ζητητόρων (Hsch.), ζητητῶν directly points to ζητέω (: ζᾱτέω) the continuant
of Ιon. δίζημαι, i.e. to PGk. *dzā-76. One may therefore assume that the first
<η> in the gloss Ζητήρ was an atticism of the tradition for *Ζᾱτήρ. The not
particularly attractive terms and activities with which Zeus Ζητήρ (: Zᾱτήρ)
is connected (s. above) fit with Zeus’ characterisation as a τιμωρός ‘punisher’
(Clem. Al. Protr. 2.39.2 oὐχὶ μέντoι Ζεὺς φαλακρὸς ἐν Ἄργει, τιμωρὸς δὲ
ἄλλoς ἐv Κύπρῳ τετίμησθoν, with explicit reference to Cyprus), which is
frequent in poetry, e.g. E. Supp. 511 Ζεὺς ὁ τιμωρoύμεvoς, Ap. Rh. 4.709
Ζῆvα, παλαμναίων τιμήoρoν ἱκεσιάων. Other literary epithets of Zeus present
him as ‘avenger’ (Ἀλάστωρ A. Pers. 352 et al., Ἀλάστoρoς Pherec.+, inscr.),
as ‘administrator of fines and justice’ (Δικασπόλoς Call. Jov. 1.3, Δικήφoρoς
A. Ag. 525-6), as ‘punisher’ (Ἐπιτιμήτωφ Od. 9.270) or simply as ‘killer’
(αὐτόχειρ A. Pers. 753 et al., ὀλετήρ, φoνεύς Nonn. D. 21.252 et al.), also the
epithet Φόνoς in Thessaly.77
To sum up: the epithet Zητήρ (: Zᾱτήρ), an old agent noun of the word
family of ζητέω, δίζημαι, may be understood as ‘the one who seeks/demands’
(scil. a reparation, s. below) by drastic methods, as suggested by the related
glosses of the type ζητρός* et al.
(2) The comparative evidence could hardly be more explicit about the
perfect equation, both formal and semantic, between Gk. ζᾱτήρ and the Rig
Vedic hapax yātár-, an agent noun of yā 2 ‘seek, demand’78 (: Gk. ζᾱ-, PGk.
*dzā-, Ved. Av. yā 2 ‘id.’, also Toch. yā-, Β yāsk- ‘beg’: IE *i̯ eh2-), as I have
tried to show)79, which designates Indra:
76
ζᾱτέο/ε- is denominative of *ζᾱ-το- (:Ved. yātá-, Av. yāta-), δί-ζημαι (Hom.,
Ionian) is an anomalous reduplicated present of the same lexem, namely IE *i̯ eh2(Ved. yā 2, middle 1pl. īmahe as per Schmid 1956, cf. n. 78), cf. the comparandum
ptc. Hom. διζήμενος : Ved. iyāná-.
77
Helly 1970, 38 (Larisa, end of 3rd C.).
78
As brilliantly stated by Schmid 1956, 222ff. (“bitten, flehen, fordern, verlangen”).
The assumption of a specific root yā 3 “to injure, harm, to attack violently”
(Kuiper 1973: 179ff.) is unnecessary. A different root is yā 1 ‘move forward’ (with
agent noun yā́ tar-).
79
García Ramón 1999; M. Kümmel in LIV2 s.v. *i̯ eh2-.
José L. García Ramón
83
RV I 32.14ab áher yātā́ raṃ kám apaśya indra hr̥dí yát te jaghnúṣo
bhī́ r ágachat ‘who sawest you, Indra, as avenger of the Dragon,
that Fear came to your heart of Killer’
In fact, Indra is said to have killed the Dragon in the same hymn 1c et al.
(áhann áhim) and yātár- is glossed as ‘killer’ (Sāy. hantr̥-). Ved. yātár- has
an antonym, namely ava-yātár- ‘the one who apologises’ (: ava-yā ‘turn off’,
‘expiate’), and stands alongside a reduced set of compounds with r̥ṇá- ‘guilt’
and ‘punishment, amendment’ and an agentive second member °yā́ , °yā́ van-,
°yā́ t- ‘seeking, demanding’, i.e. ‘the one who demands punishment’,
‘avenger’: r̥ṇa-yā́ - (5x RV), r̥ṇa-yā́ van- (RV: hapax), r̥ṇa-yā́ t- (TS):
RV IV 23.7cd r̥ṇā́ cid yátra r̥ṇayā́ na ugró dūré ájñātā uṣáso babhādé
‘while the strong avenger of guilt pushed our guilties (r̥ṇā́ ) away to far-off
unknown dawns’.
RV I 87.4c ási satyá r̥ṇayā́ vā́ nedyaḥ ‘you are a true, irreprochable
avenger’.
TS I.5.2.5...vīrahā́ vā́ eṣá devā́ nāṃ yò ’gním udvāsáyate tásya váruṇa evá
r̥ṇayā́ t “now he who removes the fire is the slayer of the hero among the
gods, Varuṇa is the exactor of the recompense”, ... yáṃ caiváṃ hánti
yáścāsaya r̥ṇayā́ t táu bhāgadhéyena prīṇāti “him whom he slays and him
whom exacts the recompense he delights with their own portion” (KeithLanman).
A definitive argument in favour of the appartenance of yātár- (and ºyā-)
to yā 2 is the perfect parallel with Ved. ce-tár- ‘punisher’ (: YAv. a-caētar-)
and r̥ṇa-cí-t-80 (: cay/ci ‘punish’ i.e. ‘make pay’: IE*ku̯ei̯ - 1, cf. Gk. τίνομαι,
ποινὴν τεῖσαι/ τείσασθαι), which semantically matches r̥ṇám / r̥ṇā́ ni cáy-ate)81:
VII 60.5ab imé cetā́ ro ántasya bhū́ rer mitró aryamā́ váruṇo hí sánti ‘you
Mitra, Aryaman, Varuṇa are the punisher of the Untruth’. Cf. also Yt.
10.26 (miϑram) ... acaetārǝm miϑro.drująm ‘(who) takes revenge on the
men deceiving Mitra’.
As to r̥ṇa-cí-t-, which occurs contiguously with synonymous r̥ṇa-yā́ -:
80
Cf. also YAv. arǝnat̰ .caēša- ‘punishing the injustice’ (Yt. 10.35).
One must concede that yātár- and the compounds with °yā́ - and variants could a
priori also belong to yā 1 ‘go (ahead)’, i.e. ‘the one who rushes to punishment’, but the
agent noun of yā 1 is actually yā́ tar-, with the antonym avayātár-, which has the same
accent as yātár-, pointing clearly to yā 2 as well.
81
84
Religious Onomastics
II 23.17cd sá r̥ṇacíd r̥ṇayā́ bráhmaṇas pátir druhó hantā́ mahá r̥tásya
dhartári ‘this Brahmaṇaspati is the avenger, he who demands repayment,
the destroyer of Deceit, holding the high Truth’.
We can therefore conclude that Gk. Ζητήρ (*Ζᾱτήρ, epithet of Zeus, isolated
within Greek) and Ved. yā-tár- ‘avenger’, *‘who demands’ (designation of
Indra, fairly isolated in Vedic) make a perfect equation both formally and
semantically, which points to IE * i̯ eh2-tér-, just like Ved. cetár-: YAv.
caētar- point to *ku̯ei̯ -tér-. The Vedic and Iranian compounds with r̥ṇaº (r̥ṇayā́ -, also r̥ṇá-cít-) make explicit the object of ‘seeking, demanding’ in the
derivative agent nouns in -tár- (: Gk. -τήρ).
14. The epithet Stător ‘Stayer’ of Iuppiter82 (inscriptions, literature)
obviously belongs to the same word family as the GN Statanus Statilinus
(Varr. nom. 532 M Statano et Statilino), special gods presiding over the
standing of infants, and Stata Mater (protectress of fire)83. The epithet
Stator formally matches the title of an official, and is attached to
provincial governors, and later to the Emperor (Cic. +, inscriptions). The
latter reflects two readings of sistō, -ere, namely intransitive ‘to stand (scil.
over)’ (: stō, -āre) and transitive ‘to establish’ (: statuō, -ere and
compounds). As stator ‘one who stands over’, cf. ἐπιστατῆρες·
ἀγορανόμοι. καὶ οἱ τῶν ποιμνίων νομεῖς, and the epithet Ἐπιστατήριος · Ζεὺς
ἐν Κρήτῃ (Hsch.), ἐπι-στάτης (Hom.+)84. The Sabellic gentilice Opsturius,
Opstorius, Ostorius in Latin inscriptions85 may belong here, if it is the
outcome of *op-stător- (: Lat. *opstitor)86 ‘who stands over’.87 As to the
82
Also of Mars, cf. Vel. Pat. 2.13 Iuppiter Capitoline, et auctor ac stator Romani
nominis Gradiue Mars, custodite, seruate, protegite hunc statum, hanc pacem.
83
Cf. the entries of Radke 1965, 291-2.
84
Also ‘president, chairman’ of different institutions (βουλή, ἐκκλησία, the
prytans) in 5th C. Athens.
85
Opsturius (Samnium), Opstorius (Africa Consularis), Ostorius (Pompei,
Campania, Rome, also the name of a Sabinian eques [Tac.]). The name is Sabellic
(PSab. */opstu:r/), as shown by <u> in Lat. Opstur- (*opstōr-): inherited */o:/
yields PSabell. */u:/, noted <u>. Lat. Opstorius, Ostorius go back to a refection on
the model of Lat. -ōrius.
86
With syncope of the second syllable (cf. Umb. loc. ustite ‘station’ : *op-statūto-,
but also statita : Lat. statūta), or with haplology of /a/ and /t/ in a sequence with
three /t/.
87
Op(s)turius, Opstorius may, however, be equally conceal the outcome of
*okus-tor- (*h3eku̯s-tor-, formed on desiderative *oku̯s-: YAv. aiuui.āxštar‘observer’).
José L. García Ramón
85
reading of ‘who establishes’, cf. Varr. gram. 137 statorem … quod haberet
… statuendi … potestatem.
The epithet stator of Iuppiter, being formally identical to the title, takes
a somewhat different position. It reflects only the transitive reading of
sistō (and consistō), namely the acceptances (a) ‘to halt, stop’ (Liv. 2.65.2
consul ubi ad iniquum locum uentum est, sistit aciem)88 and (b) ‘to place
firmly’ (Tac. Hist. 3.77 cohortis expeditas summis montium iugis super
caput hostium sistit)89, which basically matches ‘to establish, appoint’).
The last acceptance is well attested (Cic. Cat. 1.33 tu, Iuppiter, qui isdem
quibus haec urbs auspiciis a Romulo es constitutus, quem Statorem huius
urbis atque imperi vere nominamus), but is not the original one.
That Iuppiter Stator is a ‘stayer’ was appreciated by the Romans
themselves (see below), and is evident in Greek translations of the epithet
in the narration of the episode during the war with the Sabines, when
Romulus prayed to Iuppiter to stay the flight of the Romans (and received
therefore the epithet Stator):
Liv. 1.12.6. deme terrorem Romanis fugamque foedam siste. hic ego tibi
templum Statori Ioui, quod monumentum sit posteris tua praesenti ope
seruatam urbem esse, uoueo.’ ‘hinc’ inquit, ‘Romani, Iuppiter optimus
maximus resistere atque iterare pugnam iubet.’ restitere Romani …
‘deliver the Romans from their terror and stay their shamful flight
(fugamque foedam siste)! I here vow to thee, Iuppiter the Stayer, a temple
to be a memorial to our descendants how the city was saved by the present
help… Here, Romans, Iuppiter commands us to stand (resistere) and renew
the fight! The Romans did stand (restitere) …’90.
The existence of two acceptances of Stator is well attested in a curious
passage of Seneca (De ben. 4.7) where he (to my mind, wrongly) rejects
that the sense of the epithet harks back to the episode of Romulus against
the Samnians: et Iovem illum Optimum ac Maximum rite dices et
88
Cf. also Liv. 1.37.3 ut non sisterent modo Sabinas legiones, Tac. Hist. 2.33
aegre coercitam legionem et … usque ad seditionem progressam Bedriaci sistit.
89
Verg. Aen. 6.857-8 hic rem Romanam magno turbante tumultu / sistet (also Ap.
Met. 4.18).
90
Cf. also 10.36.11 inter haec consul… templum Ioui Statori uouet, si constitisset
a fuga Romana acies. The episode, which is frequently referred to (Ov. Fast.
6.793, Sen. De ben. 4.7.1 et al.), is the origin of the epithet Stator as Stayer of
troops, which occurs beside other epithets (Cic. de fin bon. 3.66 Iouem cum
Optimum et Maximum dicimus cumque eundem Salutarem, Hospitalem, Statorem,
hoc intellegi volumus, salutem hominum in eius esse tutela; Cic. Cat. 1.11 huic ipsi
Iovi Statori, antiquissimo custodi huius urbis).
86
Religious Onomastics
Tonantem et Statorem, qui non, ut historici tradiderunt, ex eo, quod post
uotum susceptum acies Romanorum fugientium stetit, sed quod stant
beneficio eius omnia, stator stabilitorque est. ‘…and it will be right if you
call him Iuppiter the Best and Greatest, and the Thunder and the Stayer not
from the fact that, as the Historians have related, after his order the Roman
battle-line stayed its flight, but because all things are stayed by his
benefits, and he is their stayer and stabilizer’.
The episode is also transmitted by Greek historians, who accurately
translate Stator as Στάτωρ (and ᾿Επιστάσιος), Στήσιος (Plutarch), also as
Ὀρθώσιος (Dionyssos of Halicarnassos)91, cf. Plut. Rom. 18.9 πολλῆς δὲ
τῆς φυγῆς αὐτῷ περιχεομένης, καὶ μηδενὸς ἀναστρέφειν τολμῶντος,
ἀνατείνας εἰς οὐρανὸν τὰς χεῖρας ηὔξατο τῷ Διὶ στῆσαι τὸ στράτευμα …
γενομένης δὲ τῆς εὐχῆς, .... ἔστησαν οὖν πρῶτον οὗ νῦν ὁ τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ
Στάτορος ἵδρυται νεώς, ὃν ᾿Επιστάσιον ἄν τις ἑρμηνεύσειεν (also Cic.
16.3 … εἰς τὸ τοῦ Στησίου Διὸς ἱερόν, ὃν Στάτορα ῾Ρωμαῖοι καλοῦσιν).
In conclusion: Iuppiter Stator ‘stayer’ (: Στάτωρ, translated as
᾿Επιστάσιος, Στήσιος by Plutarch) originally reflects the acceptance ‘to
halt, stop’ of sistō, consistō, in memory of the episode when he stayed the
Romans (: στῆσαι τὸ στράτευμα) who were taking flight and does not
match semantically the title stator ‘superviser’ (intransitive *‘standing
over’, cf. ἐπιστάτης, ἐπιστατήρ).
III. In search of Non Attested Gods in Mycenaean
and in the Sabellic Domain in Light of Onomastics:
Demeter, Apollo, Juno
15. It is a well-know fact that some epithets of major gods attested in
first millenium Greek and Latin have been, at an earlier phase, proper
names of minor independent gods, which have become assimilated in the
course of time. This is evident in the case of Greek since the decipherment
of Linear B: the same name can be attested as a theonym in Mycenaean and
as an epiclesis in Alphabetical Greek. This fact is of major importance for the
continuity of Mycenaean gods in post-Mycenaean times, and may ultimately
cast light on the absence of some Greek major gods in Linear B. In what
follows an attempt will be made to retrace the Mycenaean forerunners (or
some of them) of Demeter and Apollo in the light of their epithets attested in
the first millenium. The same approach will make possible the identification
91
Ant. 2.50.3 ῾Ρωμύλος μὲν ὀρθωσίῳ Διὶ παρὰ ταῖς καλουμέναις Μουγωνίσι
πύλαις, …, ὅτι τὴν στρατιὰν αὐτοῦ φυγοῦσαν ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς ὑπακούσας ταῖς
εὐχαῖς στῆναί τε καὶ πρὸς ἀλκὴν τραπέσθαι.
José L. García Ramón
87
of the Oscan and Umbrian goddesses matching the Roman Juno (attested also
in Etruria), which is unexpectedly absent in the Sabellic domain or, at least, is
not mentioned by her in name.
Let us turn first to the gods attested in Linear B who may be understood
as forerunners of Demeter and Apollo. Some preliminary remarks on the
religious mentions in Linear B are in order at this point:
(1) The major Greek gods are mentioned exclusively by their names,
not by means of epithets92, although it is obviously not certain that they
have the same profile and characteristics as they have had since Homer
and Hesiod: apart from Zeus (dat. di-we /Diwei/, gen. di-wo /Diwos/) and
Hera (dat. e-ra /hĒrāi/), we have, in alphabetical order, Ares (a-re, with
PN a-re-i-jo /Arehios/, a-re-ja epithet of e-ma-a2, NP a-re-ị-me-ne /Arehimenēs/, a-re-me-ne), Artemis (gen. a-te-mi-to, dat. a-ti-mi-te), Dionysus (diwo-nu-so[, gen. -o-jo), Hephaestus (/hĀphaistos/*, cf. MN a-pa-i-ti-jo),
Hermes (dat. e-ma-a2 /hErmāhāi/, gen. e-ma-a2-o), Poseidon (dat. po-se-da-one, gen. -o-no, feminine po-si-da-e-ja, and others. Four of the Olympic gods
are not attested in the Linear B tablets, namely Aphrodite, Apollo, Athena
and Demeter.93
(2) Some names of Mycenaean deities survive in post-Mycenaean times
as epithets of Olympic gods, who may be attested (Ares, Artemis, Poseidon)
or not (Apollo) in the Linear B tablets: di-wi-ja, di-u-ja /Diwiāi/94 
Pamphylian ΔιϜία (Artemis), e-nu-wa-ri-jo (dat.) /Enuwaliōi/  Ἐνυάλιος
(Ares), e-ne-si-da-o-ne (dat.) /-dāhōnei/ probably  Ἐννoσίδας (Poseidon),
pa-ja-wo-ne (dat.) /Paiāwonei/  Παιήων, Παιᾶν (Apollo).
(3) Epithets (derivatives, or theonyms used as epithets) with distinctive
function, giving a specific reference to the god-name, which are very
92
The occurrence of po-ti-ni-ja (as assumed by Aravantinos-Godart-Sacconi 2003,
20) is obviously no argument in favour of the existence of major gods being
designated by means of an epiclesis: po-ti-ni-ja (: πότνια) is a generic designation,
not a specific, distinctive epiclesis (García Ramón 2010, 88ff.).
93
The interpretation of ]pẹ-ṛọ
2 [ in KN E 842.3 as /A]pellō[nei/ (: Dor. ᾿Απέλλωv,
̣
Cypr. dat. a-pe-i-lo-ne) is not cogent given the fragmentary character of the tablet. The
name Athena is attested as a place name, cf. a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja, actually /Athānās
Potniāi/ ‘to the Mistress of Athana’ (KN V 52 + 52 bis + 8285: Room of the Chariot
tablets). The parallelism with Hom. πότνι’ Ἀθηναίη is only apparent. Myc. a-ta-na
matches formally the PN Ἀθῆναι.
94
A minor deity (but originally the formal feminine counterpart of Zeus). Cf. also the
theophoric MN di-wi-ja-wo (KN, PY, TH) di-u-ja-wo (TH) /Diwiāwōn/), and di-u-jajo- /Diwiaion/ ‘sanctuary of Diwia’.
88
Religious Onomastics
frequent in alphabetical Greek, are represented by only two instances,
namely di-ka-ta-jo (: Δικταῖος, PN Δίκτα) in di-ka-ta-jo di-wei /Diktaiōi
Diwei/ (type Apollo Mαλεάτας : Cape Μαλέα), and e-ma-a2 a-re-ja
/hErmāhāi Areiāi/ PY Tn 316.v.795. In Mycenaean there is no instance of
distinctive-descriptive epithets of the type ὀρσίαλος, ὀρσοτρίαινα (§§5.6)
or Κορουταρρα in Thessaly, Ζητήρ in Cyprus (§§12, 13).
(4) Generic designations (type Hom. πότνια θεάων, δῖα θεάων), like
po-ti-ni-ja (: πότνια), wa-na-sa* (: ἄνασσα, cf. dat. dual wa-na-so-i
(/wanatsoihi/?) ‘to the two Ladies’ or ‘at the shrines of the Ladies’96 occur
either without any further determination (and simply stress the divine
character of the deity) or with concrete reference, i.e. with distinctive and
(if understandable) descriptive function, e.g. da-pu2-ri-to-jo po-ti-ni-ja
/Daphurinthoio Potnia/ ‘Lady of Labyrinth’, po-ti-ni-ja a-si-wi-ja /Potnia
Aswiā/) ‘Lady of Aswia’, po-ti-ni-ja i-qe-ja /(h)ikkweiā-/ ‘Lady of Horses’, sito-po-ti-ni-ja /Sītopotniāi/ or /sītōn Potniāi/ ‘Lady of the corn’ (see
below). Cf. also ma-te-re po-ti-ni-ja /Mātrei Potniāi/ ‘to the divine Mother’,
te-i-ja ma-te-re /Theiāi Matrei/ ‘to Mother Goddess’.
(5) Other Mycenaean religious names are not attested as such in the first
millennium. Few of them may be understandable as (or associated with)
Greek words. This is the case of the theonyms (all in dative) di-ri-mi-jo (cf.
δριμύς ‘sharp, kin’), do-po-ta (cf. δεσπότης ‘[house]lord’), ko-ma-we-te-ja
(cf. κόμη ‘hair’),97 qe-ra-si-ja (cf. θήρ ‘fēra’, θηρατής, or PN Θήρα), ti-ri-sero-e /Tris-hērōhei/ ‘thrice-hero’ (cf. ἥρως). Two further (probably minor)
deities, designated by means of an adjective, may be conjectured on the basis
of theophoric names with °δoτoς,98 namely /Awisto-/ ‘invisible’ in MN a-wi-
95
Either “Hermahas under the aspect close to Ares” (Parker 2005, 225), as in the case
of Zeus Ares and Athena Areia (Athena is also known as πρόμαχος), or as Hermes
who saved Ares in the episode of the Aloads told by Dione as a consolation to
wounded Aphrodite (Guilleux 2012, 469ff.).
96
The question of whether reference is made to Demeter and Kore must remain open.
97
/Κomāwet-eiāi/ ‘with long hair', or /Κomāwent-eiāi/ with appurtenance suffixe /-eiā/ “belonging to Komāwens” */komāwents/) ‘the one with long hairs’ (Leukart 1994:
65 n. 53), probably a ‘tutelar goddess of ko-ma-we, as José Luis Melena assumes, on
the strength of the fact that ko-ma-we is attested as a man’s name. The assumption
that ko-ma-we /Komawēns/ in PY Aq 218.10 is “probabilmente un’epiclesi di
Poseidon” (Del Freo 1996-1997, 153ff.) is hardly cogent, as nothing suggests that koma-we is but a man. The suggestive association with κυανοχαίτης, epithet of
Poseidon (Hom.+) remains hypothetical only for this reason. My scepticism about
this point in García Ramón 2010a, 89 n.98 is nothing but a rough slip, as Poseidon
is repeatedy mentioned as κυανοχαίτας since Homer.
98
García Ramón 2008, 326ff.
José L. García Ramón
89
to-do-to /Awisto-dotos/ (cf. ἄ-ϊστoς ‘invisible’ or ‘who may not be looked
at’)99 and /Iskhu-/ ‘powerful’ in i-su-ku-wo-do-to /Iskhuo-dotos/ (cf. ἰσχύς)100.
17. Α closer look at Enu(w)alios and Ares allows the identification of a
difference between the situation in Mycenaean and in Homer, and some
conclusions to be drawn which are relevant for the continuity of
Mycenaean god names as Post-Mycenaean divine epithets.
Both e-nu-wa-ri-jo /Enuwalio-/ (a minor god attested in Crete) and
Ares (a major god attested in Cnosos, Pylos and indirectly in Thebes)
coexisted in Mycenaean. The latter shows some variants101, namely */Ares-/
(nom. a-re ?, Hom. Ἄρης, dat. Ἄρει), with theophoric MN a-re-i-jo / Arehios/
(: Ἄρειoς, adj. ἄρειoς),102 as well as a-re-ja (dat.) /Areiāi/ (*aresi̯ ā-), an
epithet of Hermes (a-re-ja e-ma-a2) as well as the MN a-re-ị-me-ne, a-re-mene /Arē hi-menēs/ (: Ἀρειμένης, cf. Hom. μένoς Ἄρηoς Il. 18.264, μαίνεται
Ἄρης Il. 15.605). We can also assume that at the time of the Mycenaean
tablets, Enu(w)alios was still an autonomous god, certainly a bellicose one,
who coexisted with (but was still not absorbed by) Ares. The situation was a
fairly different one at the time of Homer: Ἐνυάλιος is used as an epithet of
Ares (e.g. Il. 17.210/1 ... δῦ δέ μιν Ἄρης / δεινὸς ἐνυάλιος). This points to an
assimilation of Enu(w)alios by Ares, or as synonymous of Ares, Il. 18.309
ξυνὸς Ἐνυάλιος103, 22.132 ἶσος Ἐνυαλίῳ κορυθάϊκι πτολεμιστῇ104, 2.651
Μηριόνης τ᾿ ἀτάλαντος Ἐνυαλίῳ ἀνδρειφόντῃ # (et al.).
The same process, with different chronology, may be assumed for
Paia(wo)n (Παιήων Hom.+, Παιᾶν): the GN (dat.) pa-ja-wo-ne /Paiāwōnei/
(Cnossos) remains a divine healer in epic and lyric poetry (Il. 5.401f. τῷ δ’
ἐπὶ Παιήων ὀδυνήφατα φάρμακα πάσσων / ἠκέσατ’[o]105. Anyway at a
99
The same applies to Athena (ἄιστoς Schol. in Ar. Nub. 967, ἄπoπτoς Soph. Ai. 15),
Persephone (ἀφανής Soph. OC 1556), probably also Ἅιδης, Ep. Ἀΐδης which may
have been interpreted by the Greeks as ‘invisible’.
100
Gk. *ἰσχύς is originally an adjective and a noun ἰσχύς (/u:/) ‘force, strength’ (De
Lamberterie 1990, 297), cf. Θερσύς epithet of Athena (Larissa, 2nd C.). Strong gods
are Ares (κρατερός), Hera (ἰσχυρά), Hades (ἴφθιμος) et al.
101
A variant *Arēu̯- (: Hom. Ἄρηoς, Ἄρηι, cf. Ἀρήϊoς, Lit. Aeol. Ἀρεύϊoς) is attested
only in Alphabetical Greek.
102
Also probably MN a-pi-ja-re[ (KN) /Amphi-arēs/, a-pi-ja-re-jo, pa-na-re-jo (KN,
PY), cf. Παvάρης.
103
Also Il. 14.519, 20.69.
104
Also Il. 7.166 = 8.264 = 17.259.
105
Cf. also HHAp. 517 Κρῆτες πρὸς Πυθὼ καὶ ἰηπαιήον ἄειδον, Pi. P. 4.270 …ἰατὴρ
… Παι/άν …, Sol. F 13.58 West Παιῶνος πολυφαρμάκου ἔργον ἔχοντες ἰητροί.
Whether he Παιήων is independent of Apollo, the far shooter, or simply an alternative
epiclesis of him (like Ἐνυάλιος for Ἄρης since Homer) remains open to debate.
90
Religious Onomastics
given point, Paiawon is certainly assimilated by Apollo and occurs as one
of his epithets in Late Greek106. Myc. pa-ja-wo-ne may thus be safely
interpreted as a god with a salient feature in common with Apollo, namely
that of healer, and also as his Mycenaean forerunner, or at least as one of
them.
The coexistence in Mycenaean of e-ne-si-da-o-ne, probably
/Enesidā(h)ōnei/ (Cnossos), whatever its meaning might be, and Poseidaon
(Pylos) in his different forms (po-se-da-o /Poseidāhōn/: Hom. Πoσειδάωv,
gen. po-se-da-o-no /- ōnos/, dat. po-se-da-o-ne and po-se-da-o-ni /- ōnei/ and
/-ōni/, with his feminine counterpart po-si-da-e-ja /Posidāheiāi/, the sanctuary
po-si-da-i-jo /Posidāhion/ (direct. po-si-da-i-jo-de), and dat.pl. po-si-da-i-jeu-si /Posidāhiēusi/ ‘to the priests of the Posidaion’) points to a period where
both gods co-existed, before the former was assimilated by the latter, as seen
in the poetic epithet Ἐννοσίδας, which is attested as an epithet οf Poseidon in
choral poetry (e.g. Pi. P. 4.173 ᾿Εννοσίδα γένος).
To sum up: Major gods co-exist in Mycenaen along with minor gods
who they then later absorb. Such is the case of Ares and Enuwalios,
Apollon and Paiawon, Poseidon and Enesidaon.
18. It is also possible that a major god who is attested in Mycenaean by
his “classical” name co-exists with other minor god(s), the names of
whom are understandable and actually match the sense(s) of one or more
epithet(s) of the major god in alphabetic Greek. In this case, one can
assume that the minor Mycenaean god (or gods!) sharing peculiarities with
a major one was his forerunner –and was absorbed by him in postMycenaean times in the form of an epithet.
This is the case of Artemis (gen. a-te-mi-to, dat. a-te/i-mi-te (Pylos):
Ἄρτεμις, West Gk. Ἄρταμις), certainly a non-Greek name, see Lyd. Artimuś).
The goddess is characteristically connected with horses and with wild beasts.
These peculiarities are found in the names of two other Mycenaean, probably
minor, deities, namely the po-ti-ni-ja i-qe-ja and qe-ra-si-ja (both in
Cnosos), which may be considered as two of her forerunners in light of
some of the epithets of Artemis in Greek poetry:
po-ti-ni-ja i-qe-ja /(h)ikkweiā-/ ‘lady of the horses’ matches de epithets
of Artemis ἱπποσόα ‘horse-driving’ (Pi. O. 3.26 … · ἔνθα Λατοῦς ἱπποσóα
θυγάτηρ / δέξατ’ ἐλθόντ’(α) ‘where Leto’s horse driving daughter had
welcomed him’107).
106
AP 9.525.26 ὑμνέωμεν Παιᾶνα, μέγαν θεὸν Ἀπόλλωνα.
With ungrammatical motion. Regular masc. ἱπποσόος occurs also as an epithet
of ἄνδρες (Pi. P. 2.65).
107
José L. García Ramón
91
qe-ra-si-ja is more complicated. The theonym belongs to a complex of
six definite non-Greek, and probably Minoan, goddesses with obscure
names (pi-pi-tu-na, *56-ti, pa-sa-ja, si-ja-ma-to, pa-de, and qe-ra-si-ja), who
are contextually linked in the tablets and may be subsumed under the
common label pa-si-te-o-i in the Cnossian corpus, and had cults which were
probably spacially and temporally associated, as shown by J. Giulizio and D.
Nakassis108. Nevertheless, if the GN qe-ra-si-ja conceals the outcome of
*/Khwērasiā-/ (and that of qe-ra-si-jo */Khwērasio-/), it may have an IE
etymology, if connected with θήρ ‘wild beast’, Hom. θήρ, Aeol. φήρ (IE
*g̑hu̯ēr- cf. Lat. fērus, fēra, Lith. žvėrìs, OCS zvěrъ), although the type of
formation is not transparent. One may assume a derivative in -σιος / -σία
of a collective */khwērā-/ of the type ἡμεράσιος : ἥμερος ‘mild’, cf. Artemis
Ἡμερασία, in Arcadia), or eventually a ‘Lady of Hunters’ (: θηρατής
‘hunter’, as per J. Taillardat)109. It remains, of course, possible that the
name of the goddess is simply pre-Greek: but even in this case, it may
have been secondarily adapted by folk-etymology to θήρ. Whatever, the
close connection of Artemis with wild animals is well known, as shown by
the literary epithets θηροσκόπος ‘looking out for wild beasts’ (HH 27.11
θηροσκόπος Ἰοχέαιρα, Ba. F 11.106-7 ἀριστοπάτρα / θηροσκόπος),
θηροφόνη ‘killing wild beasts’ (C.Thgn. 11 Ἄρτεμι θηροφόνη, Ar. Th. 320
πολυώνυμε θηροφόνη, / Λατοῦς χρυσώπιδος ἔρνος110).
19. It is basically agreed that the main Greek gods have reached their
profile and functions in part as the result of the assimilation of other
previous gods. We can assume that major gods who do not occur in the
Linear B tablets, or who were still not major in Mycenaean times, may
have absorbed one (or more) of the gods attested in Linear B texts. In what
follows, an attempt will be made to show that Demeter and Apollo, who are
absent in the tablets, may have existed avant la lettre, i.e. have been referred
to by other names, or have some forerunners in Mycenaean times. Three
explanations are a priori possible for the fact that neither of these deities is
attested by their name:
108
Giulizio-Nakassis forthcoming. That the goddess is not Greek does not
necessarily exclude the possibility that she could have received a Greek name or
that she had a non-Greek name which had been adapted to Greek.
109
Taillardat 1984, 372-3. The fact that θηρατήρ is first attested in Classical Greek
(Ar. Nu. 358, Ael.) is no problem for the assumption of a pair Myc. */khwērātā-/ ::
*/khwērāsio/ā-/ like /lāwāgetā-/ :: /lāwāgesio/ā-/.
110
Cf. θηροφόνος· θηροκτόνος Ἄρτεμις Hsch. Cf. also the epithet θηροκτόνος
(Orph.).
92
Religious Onomastics
(a) it does not exist yet, or at least is not integrated into the Mycenaean
pantheon,
(b) it does exist, but is referred to by means of a different noun in the
Linear B texts,
(c) it does not exist yet with the characteristics it has in the first
millennium, but there is evidence for, at least, another deity, the name
of which evokes one of its significant peculiarities: the latter may be
considered as a direct forerunner of the non-attested, “hidden” deity.
The possibility (a) is a default one, and can be neither confirmed nor
disproved, although it certainly remains open. The same applies basically to
(b): if the putative alternative Mycenaean noun of the hidden deity is not
associated with it in first millennium Greek, the case for a forerunner can
hardly be made on the basis of real evidence. More promising is (c).
20. Demeter, a goddess directly associated with grain and corn (σῖτoς
‘grain’, also ‘human food’), can hardly be separated from si-to-po-ti-ni-ja
‘Lady/Mistress of Grain’111 of Mycenae (Oi 701), probably of pre-Greek
origin, but referred to by the inherited term πότνια (: Ved. pátnī-).
One may safely assume that si-to-po-ti-ni-ja was the forerunner (or one
of the forerunners) of Demeter, as ultimately shown by her mentions as
πότνια Δημήτηρ (HH 5.54), πότνια Δηώ (πότνια ... Δηοῖ ἄνασσα ibid. 47)
and by the occurrence in Sicily of Σιτώ as an epithet of the goddess (Ael.,
Eust.)112: Σιτώ is a short form of a compounded epithet of Demeter, with
first member σιτοo (σιτοφόρος [of the earth], *σιτοδότειρα), or simply the
divine personification of σῖτος by means of the feminine suffix -ώ. It must
be stressed at this point that the Sicilian Σιτώ cannot match si-to in the
series TH Ft (1) and Av 100, 101 of Thebes, and that si-to is not a mention
of Demeter113. Myc. si-to in TH Ft and Av matches Hom. σῖτος, as a mere
designation of ‘corn’, i.e. ‘human food’ and a concrete explicitation of kapa /karpā/, collective of καρπός ‘fruit food’ as against ko-ro /koros/
111
Cf. Boëlle 2004, 186ff.; Rougemont 2005, 348-9; Weilhartner 2005, 195, 199.
Ael. 1.27 λέγεται δὲ ἐν Σικελίᾳ Ἀδηφαγίας ἱερὸν εἶναι καὶ Σιτοῦς ἄγαλμα
Δήμητρος, Eust. ad Il. 1, p. 405, καὶ ὡς παρὰ Συρακουσίοις ἐτιμᾶτο Δημήτηρ Σιτὼ
διὰ τήν, ὡς εἰκός, ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ εὐφορίαν ἐκεῖ τοῦ σίτου, συνιστορεῖ καὶ
Ἀθηναῖος.
113
Pace Aravantinos-Godart-Sacconi 2001, 271, who interpret si-to as a variant of
a putative goddess ma-ka (Thebes), in which they believe they see a Mycenaean
Demeter.
112
José L. García Ramón
93
‘animal foddering’ (cf. κόρος ‘satiety’, also ‘arrogance’), as I have tried to
show114.
21. As to the absence of Apollo in the Mycenaen texts, I shall make the
case for di-ri-mi-jo, a minor god, as one of his forerunners115. The
theonym, attested in dative, occurs in contiguity after di-we and e-ra, each
of both followed by the indication of an offering, in the tablet PY Tn 316
v.8/9:
di-we AUR *213VAS 1 VIR 1 e-ra AUR *213VAS 1 MUL 1
di-ri-mi-jo di-wo , i-je-we , AUR *213VAS 1 [ ] vacat
It is evident that di-ri-mi-jo, di-wo, i-je-we /Drīmiōi, Diwos hiewei/ ‘for
Drimios, the son of Zeus’ reflects the existence of a triad one can safely
assume for Pylos. The name does not match any theonym or epithet in the
first millennium.
The GN di-ri-mi-jo, which may be read /Drīmio-/ rather than
/Drimio-/, shows two crucial characteristics: (1) it is connected with
δριμύς116 (with /i:/) ‘sharp, keen, piercing’ (Hom.+)117: the name /Drīmio-/
presents the god as a bitter one, who causes pains and sorrows118, and (2) it
refers to a minor god, as ‘son of Zeus’, who is member of a triad with
Zeus and Hera.
As to (1), Myc. di-ri-mi-jo /Drīm-io-/ is a derivative, or a “short form”
of a compound with Δριμυ°119, like the MN Δρίμων, Δρίμυλος, Δρίμακος
(heroic name), fem. Δριμώ (mythical name). They fit the pattern of a
García Ramón 2010a, 84-5. The term occurs also in si-to-ko-wo /sītokhowoi/
‘pourers of grain’ (TH Av 104[+]191, PY An 292) /°khowo-/: χέω ‘pour’, cf. Lat.
segetem fundere, Hitt. kar(a)š išḫu[a]-ḫḫi.
115
This view has been set out with some different arguments in García Ramón
2012.
116
Gk. δριμύς goes back to *driH-mú- (from *drHi-mú-, with laryngeal
metathesis, cf. Latv. drĩsme ‘tearing’) and belongs to IE *der(H)- ‘to tear, skin,
flay, separate violently, split’ (Ved. dar(i), Gr. δείρω), as has been convincingly
shown by De Lamberterie 1990: 439ff., 447ff. (with accurate discussion of the
data). Cf. also δῆρις ‘contest’ [< *‘tearing’] and PGmc. *turna- [: OSax. torn
‘bitter’, Germ. Zorn]).
117
A connection with δρυμά ‘glades’ (Homer) is highly problematic because of the
-u- vocalism.
118
As rightly pointed out by Pötscher 1987: 21 (“ein leidbringender Gott”), with
reference to δριμύσοω ‘to cause a biting pain’.
119
Ruijgh 1967: 105.
114
Religious Onomastics
94
subsystem including adjectives in -υ- :: MN in -ιος, -ίας, -ίων, fem. -ώ vel
sim., e.g.:
βαθύς ‘deep’
βαρύς ‘heavy’
βριθύς ‘heavy’
γλυκύς ‘sweet’
εὐθύς ‘right’
θρασύς ‘brave’
κρατύς ‘strong’
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
MN Βαθίας
MN Βάριος
MN fem. Βριθώ
MN Γλυκίων
MN Εὔθιος, Ευθίων
MN Θράσιος, Θρασίας/Θαρσίας, Θαρσίων
Κράτιος.
The old epithet δριμύς designates everything which is (or may be
perceived as) sharp or keen and is in many respects coincident with those
of ὀξύς (as stated by the gloss δριμύ· ὀξύ. σφοδρόν, θερμόν, δριμύς· *ὀξύς
Hsch.) and of πικρός. In fact, δριμύς, ὀξύ, and πικρός, not being fully
synonymous, have some collocations in common, among them120:
a) with shafts and weapons, namely βέλος ‘arrow, dart’, Apollo’s weapon
par excellence: βέλος ὀξύ ... / δριμύ (Il. 11. 269-70), ὀξὺ πάγη βέλος
(Il. 4.185) and Mimn. F 14.8 πικρὰ βέλεα. See also ὀιστὸς ὀξυβελής
‘sharp pointed arrow' (Il. 4.125-6: *ὀξὺ βέλος), πικρὰ βέλεμνα (Il.
22.206), and especially πικρὸν ὀιστόν (Ιl. 4.118, Od. 22.7-8), which is
thrown by men who symptomatically invoke Apollo.
b) with war: δριμεῖα μάχη (Il. 15.696 +) beside ὀξὺν Ἀρῆα (Il. 2. 440,
Epich. +).
c) with μένος ‘internal force’: δριμὺ μένος (Od. 24.319), δριμὺ μένος
κραδίης (Mimn. F 14.6), χόλος ‘eagerness’ (δριμὺς χόλος Il. 18.322)
beside θυμοῦ τ’ αὖ μένος ὀξύ (HH 8.14)121.
d) with persons, divinities and avenging spirits referred to as ‘fierce,
bitter’ (first in classical poetry): δριμὺς ἅγροικος (Ar. Eq. 808 +), ὁ
παλαιὸς δριμὺς ἀλάστωρ / Ἀτρέως (A. Ag. 1501-2).
One may safely assume that the Mycenaean di-ri-mi-jo was felt as
‘sharp, keen, piercing’, or, more precisely, as a god acquainted with
objects or activities which are designated as δπιμύς -or by the synonyms
ὀξύς, πικρός. Consequently Myc. /Drīmios/ may be understand either as an
onomastic variant, or even as a “short form” of a compound like *δριμυβελής (cf. βέλος ὀξὺ ... δριμύ Il. 11.269/70), or *δριμύ-τοξος, or *δριμυμένης (cf. δριμὺ μένος Od. 24.319 +), or *δριμύθυμος, which are non120
The same applies to pains: ὀξεῖαι δ᾿ὀδύναι (Il. 11.272), πικρὰς ὠδῖνας ibid.271
and ὠδίνουσαν ... βέλος ὀξὺ γυναῖκα / δριμύ .268/9.
121
Cf. also Il. θυμὸς ὀξύς (Soph.), ὀξύθυμος (Epich., Eur. +), and ὀξύχολος ἀνήρ
(Sol. fr. 13.26 +), πικρόχολος C.H.).
José L. García Ramón
95
attested in Alphabetic Greek, but are conceivable for a god such as Apollo
at a time in which the old epithet δριμύς was commonly used. In fact, the
alleged *δριμυ-βελής has a perfect parallel in the Homeric hapax ὀξυβελής
(Il. 4.125), originally a possessive compound ‘who has sharp darts’122.
22. As to (2), a look at the gods who are called ‘son of Zeus’ (Διὸς
υἱός) in Greek Poetry shows that only Dionysus, Hermes (and Ares in Late
Greek) and Apollo fulfill this condition.
a) Dionysus, who is quoted as Σεμέλας καὶ Δίος υἶος by Alcaeus (F
346.3), also in a formal variant in the Homeric Hymn to Dionysus
(HH 26.2 Ζηνὸς καὶ Σεμέλης ἐρικυδέος ἀγλαὸν υἱόν) is referred to
as Διὸς παῖς (E. Ba. 1 ἥκω Διὸς παῖς τήνδε Θηβαίων χθόνα /
Διόνυσος) or simply as ὁ Διός (ibid. 466 Διόνυσος ... ὁ τοῦ Διός,
859-60 … τὸν Διὸς / Διόνυσον). Dionysus is in fact a member of
the triad together with Zeus and Hera in the Aiolis, as attested since
Alcaeus (F 30 Voigt: 129 LP.1-10 ἀντίαον Δία / σὲ δ’ Αἰολήιαν
[κ]υδαλίμαν θέον /…, τὸν δὲ τέρτον /…/ Ζόννυσσον ὠμήσταν),
who mentions Zeus as protector of the suppliants (ἀντίαον Δία .6),
Hera as Aeolian (Αἰολήιαν .7) and Dionysus as the third one, eating
raw flesh (τὸν δὲ τέρτον … Ζόννυσσον ὠμήσταν .10). He is never,
though, as far as I know, referred to as ‘keen, sharp’.123
b) Hermes is often mentioned as the son of Zeus (and of Maia), twice
in Homer (Od. 8.335 Ἑρμεια, Διὸς υἱέ …)124, and frequently in the
Homeric Hymn dedicated to him (HH 3.1 Ἑρμῆν ... Διὸς καὶ
Μαιάδος υἱόν). He is also mentioned without explicit indication of
his name (28 Διὸς δ’ ἐριούνιος υἱός, 101-2 … Διὸς ἄλκιμος υἱὸς /
Φοίβου Ἀπόλλωνος...)125.
c) Ares, being actually a son of Zeus, is first mentioned as Διὸς υἱός
in Quintus of Smyrna (Διὸς ὄβριμος υἱὸς Ἄρης 1.189, also 1.72).
122
This meaning is different from the current translation ‘sharp-pointed’. This has
been correctly observed by Suda s.v. ὀξυβελής· ὀξέως βάλλων, ἤ ὀξῦ βέλος ἔχων,
as against the Hesychian Gloss ὀξυβελής· ὀξέως βληθείς, ἤ ταχέως βαλλόμενος.
123
As J. L. Melena has pointed out to me, in the tablet of Khania CHA Gq 5 both
the Cretan Zeus and Dionysus are recipients of honey offerings and share the same
sanctuary, namely that of Zeus (di-wijo-de).
.1
di-wi-jo-ḍẹ
di-we
ṂẸ + ṚỊ *2̣0̣9̣ VAS + Ạ 1̣ [
.2
di-wo-nu-so ,
ṂẸ + ṚỊ *2̣0̣9̣ VAS + Ạ ] 2̣ [
124
Cf. also Il. 24.333 (speaks Zeus).
125
Cf. also HH 3.183, 432. In vocative cf. ibid 455 Διὸς υἱέ, 446 Διὸς καὶ Μαιάδος
υἱέ, 550-1.
96
Religious Onomastics
The god, who incarnates (or simply designates) the bitter war, and is
referred to as ὀξύς, in fact a synonym of δριμύς (Il. 2.440 ἐγείρoμεν
ὀξὺν ῎Αρηα et. al.), turns out to be a good candidate to have been
called Drimios (i.e. δριμύς) in the first instance, or to have absorbed a
Mycenaean minor god who bore this name. This interpretation has
been brilliantly argued for by W. Pötscher126, who invokes the
formular collocations δριμεῖα μάχη (Il. 15.696)127 and ὀξὺν Ἄρηα128:
μάχη and Ἄρης have formular epithets which are practically
synonymous with δριμύς. On the other hand, the name of Ares has
been associated by the Ancients with ἀρά ‘curse’ and with
πόλεμος.129 Moreover, the epithets of Ares in Homer point to a
δριμὺς θεός130: βροτολοιγός ‘causing pain to the mortals’, στυγερός
‘horrible’, μιαιφόνος ‘blood-stained’ (*‘stainfully killing’), οὖλος
‘destructive’, among others131. In any case, the fact is that Ares is
also well attested in Linear B.132
The hypothesis remains therefore attractive, but raises some problems:
Ares is not referred to as ‘son of Zeus’ before Quintus of Smyrna, and is
not a member of a triade with Zeus and Hera.
In summary: in spite of their designation as ‘son of Zeus’, Dionysus,
Hermes and Ares are, in my opinion, not good candidates to be identified
with di-ri-mi-jo as both are attested in Linear B, each one by his name,
namely di-wo-nu-so (Pylos), e-ma-a2 and a-re, in different forms (Cnosos,
Pylos, Thebes).
126
Pötscher 1987, 21ff.
μάχην δριμεῖαν (Hes. Th. 713).
128
Il. 2.440, also 4.352, 8.531, 18.305, 17.721, 19.237.
129
Cf. ἀρή· εὐχή “ἀράων ἀίων” (Il. 15.378) καὶ βλάβη ἡ ἐν τῷ Ἄρει, τουτέστιν ἐν
πολέμῳ (Il. 8.100) ἀπειλή. εὐχή. κατάρα (Hsch.), also παρὰ τὴν ἀράν, τὴν
γενομένην βλάβην ἐκ πολέμου (EM).
130
Pötscher 1987, 22ff. with references.
131
Homeric μῶλος Ἄρηος ‘the turmoil of Ares’ cannot be separated from Hittite
mallai ḫarrai ‘milling, grinding’, as has been convincingly argued by Barnes 2009,
see Il. 2.401 εὐχόμενος θάνατόν τε φυγεῖν καὶ μῶλον Ἄρηος ‘in prayer to escape
death and the grind of Ares/war’, 7.147 μετὰ μῶλον Ἄρηος ‘this armour he then
wore himself through the grind of battle’. In any case, Ares is not exclusively a
god of war: he is also a god of material wealth (cf. Ares Aphneios in Tegea,
Arcadia), and the cows of the Dawn, as convincingly argued by Guilleux 2012,
462ff.
132
García Ramón 2008.
127
José L. García Ramón
97
23. Apollo, who is not attested by name in Linear B, fulfills, in my
opinion, the conditions for being considered as the continuant of
Mycenaean di-ri-mi-jo, or as the god who has absorbed him133.
Two arguments may be invoked in support of this view: (a) Apollo is
mentioned as son of Zeus in Homer, also in formulaic contexts; (b)
sharpness, the quality concealed by the name di-ri-mi-jo, is well-known
characteristic of Apollo (and of the arrows) since Homer:
(a) Apollo is often mentioned as Διὸς υἱός with exactly the same word
order as di-ri-mi-jo in tablet PY Tn 316, namely in the formulas
/Διòς υἱός Ἀπόλλων # (after the heptemimeres: Il. 16.720 et al.)134
and their variants /ἄναξ Διòς υἱός Ἀπόλλων # (after the trochaic
caesura: Il. 7.23 et al.)135: Il. 16.720 τῷ μιν ἐεισάμενος προσέφη
Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων, Il. 7.23 τὴν πρότερος προσέειπεν ἄναξ Διὸς
υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων, cf. also in Il. 1.21 ἁζόμενοι Διὸς υἱὸν ἑκηβόλον
Ἀπόλλωνα.
The coincidence with the word order of Myc. di-ri-mi-jo, di-wo, i-je-we is
complete when the Homeric collocation occurs in dative:
Il. 22.302 Ζηνί τε καὶ Διὸς υἷι ἑκηβόλῳ, οἵ με πάρος γε136 … ‘ (pleasing) to
Zeus, and Zeus’s son, who strikes from afar, who in former times …’
PY Tn 316 v.9 di-we … di-ri-mi-jo, di-wo , i-je-we AUR *213VAS 1 [ ]
vacat.
Apollo is also designated by means of the collocation ἄναξ Διòς υἱός,
without indication of the name (Il. 5.105 ὦρσεν ἄναξ Διὸς υἱὸς
ἀπορνύμενον Λυκίηθεν, and Διὸς τέκος (Il. 21.229).
(b) Apollo was (or was perceived by the Greeks as) δριμύς: he had the
personality that the etymology allows to assume for Myc. di-ri-mijo, or at least shared some of his salient features. The attestations of
Apollo in Greek poetry point unmistakingly to a god who is
acquainted with (and master of) objects like darts, arrows (βέλεα)
133
Apollo is integrated in a divine triad with Leto and Artemis. There is, to my
knowledge, no attestation of a triad composed of Zeus, Hera and Apollo.
134
Cf. also Il.7.326 (= 20.82), Od. 8.334 et al.
135
Cf. also Il. 7.37, 16.804, 20.103.
136
The case form attested in Mycenaean (dat. /Diw-ei/) would not fit a Homeric
formula: a formulaic segment after the trihemimeres caesura could only be created
at a date in which the dative form of the -u-stems was not /-ei/, but /-i/, i.e. in PostMycenaean times.
98
Religious Onomastics
and bows, all of them also referred to as δριμύς (§21a). It may be
remembered at this point that those who throw a πικρὸν ὀιστόν
often invoke Apollo, as seen in the case of Pandaros (Il. 4.118) and
Odysseus (Od. 22.7-8)137. Moreover, Apollo is referred to as
πελεμίζων … τόξῳ (Pi. O. 9.48), τοξοφόρος ‘bow-bearer’ (HH 3.13
[=123] as τοξοφόρον καὶ καρτερὸν υἱὸν, Pi. O. 6.59 ὅν πρόγονον,
καὶ τοξοφόρον Δά/λου θεοδμάτας σκοπόν, et al.), and throws his
βέλος ἐχεπευκὲς (Il. 1.51, 4.128ff.).
Moreover, the epithets given to Apollo show a close relation with
arrows and darts: ἑκηβόλος (Il. 1.96, Hes. Th. 94+) ‘attaining his aim from
afar’, ‘far shooting’ (also ἑκαβόλος S. OT 162), ἑκατηβόλος ‘hitting the
mark at will’ (HH 3.234+, also ἑκαταβόλος Pi. P. 8.88 +), and
ἑκατηβελέτης (HH 1.157). All this gives Apollo the profile of an evil god
(δεινός Il. 16.788+), λαοσόος ‘who rouses the people in arms’ (Il. 20. 79),
ὀλοώτατος (HH 3.307), who is a master of darts (Hom. βέλος δριμύ) and
is profiled in Homer as archer and killer. If di-ri-mi-jo /Drīm-io-/ reflects a
compound like *δριμυ-βελής ‘of evil darts’ or *δριμύ-τοξος ‘of evil bows
and arrows’, the match with Apollo seems a perfect one.
It must remain open at this point whether this god is truly Greek or
whether he has in fact come from the Near East. In this latter case he could
have either a connection to the Anatolian Lord of the Arrow (Hitt. Yarri,
Babyl. Erra), or to the Ugaritic archer god Rešep Mikal, who has been
assimilated in Greek under the form Ἄμυκλος (Cyprus, also in Laconia,
hence the place name Ἄμύκλαι and the epiclesis of Apollo Ἀμυκλαῖος in
Sparta)138 or represent a synthesis of at least two gods, one of whom
should be the Anatolian Lord of the Arrows.139
In conclusion: di-ri-mi-jo may be considered as a Mycenaean
forerunner of Apollo. We assume that the collocation [son of Zeus] points
to a connection between Mycenaean di-ri-mi-jo and Apollo, who, in
contrast to other gods who are also referred to in the same way (Dionysus,
Hermes in epic poetry, Ares in Nonnos), does not occur in Mycenaean
137
Il. 4.118-9 αἶψα δ’ ἐπὶ νευρῇ κατεκόσμει πικρὸν ὀϊστόν, / εὔχετο δ' Ἀπόλλωνι
Δυκηγενέϊ κλυτοτόξῳ ‘swiftly he arranged the bitter arrow along the bowstring,
and made his prayer to Apollo…of glorious arch’ and Od. 22.7-8 … αἴ κε τύχωμι,
πόρῃ δέ μοι εὖχος Ἀπόλλων. / ἦ, καὶ ἐπ' Ἀντινόῳ’ θύνετο πικρὸν ὀϊστόν ‘…if I can
hit it, and Apollo grants me the glory”. He spoke and steered a bitter arrow against
Antinoos’.
138
Cf. also the sanctuary Ἀμυκλαῖον, and the month Ἀμυκλαῖος (extensively on
this Vegas Sansalvador 2012).
139
Cf. recently Haas 1994, 368ff., Graf 2010, 9ff., 136f., 139ff.
José L. García Ramón
99
texts. Moreover, the personality of Apollo, as the lord of the Arrows who
deals with sharp darts (πικρὸν οἰστόν) and kills from afar (ἑκατηβόλος),
fits the pattern of an evil god, as sharp and keen as the name of di-ri-mi-jo
(: δριμύς) suggests.
24. Let us turn to Ancient Italy, and especially to the Sabellic domain,
where the absence of mentions of Juno by name is somehow surprising,
given that Juno is actually attested in Etruria under the form Uni
(*iūnī-)140. The situation in Sabellic Italy is not identical with that in
Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean Greece, as the data are contemporary and
there is no possibility of establishing a chronological sequence. However,
the theoretical framework and the approach remain the same: it is possible
to assume that a goddess (or more than one) matching Juno, or a Proto- or
Pre-Juno previous to the Classical Juno, did exist in the Sabellic area and
was/were mentioned by (an)other name(s). The search for traces of a
goddess (or more goddesseses) who are forerunner(s) of Juno may be
attempted on the basis of linguistic (names, epithets) and cultual features
which could fit the pattern of the earliest peculiarities of Juno, i.e. before
she became the “classical” Roman Juno. In what follows, an attempt will
be made to show that Oscan Pupluna- (§ 25) and Umbrian Vesuna- (§ 26)
match the Latin Juno, at least in some of her features prior to her
integration in the Classical Roman Pantheon as the spouse of Iuppiter.141
25. The epithet Populona for Juno is attested in inscriptions of the
Oscan region, namely Northern Campania and Samnium, between the first
century BC and end of the second century AD: IUNO POPULONA:
(Campania: Teanum Sidicinum (CIL X 4780, 4789, 4790, 4791), also
Apulia, Calabria, Luceria142.
X 4780 [IU] NONI POPULONA[E] / sacrum (Teanum). Cf. also X Anniae
Argivae / sacerd(oti) IUNONIS / POPULONAE /,
X 4790 Noniae Prisca[e] / sacerd(oti) IUNON(IS) POPULON(AE)143.
A complex formula with the indication REGINAE POPULONIAE (dat.) is
also attested in Dacia: (IUNONI / REGINAE PO/PULONIAE / DEAE PATRIAE CIL
140
Cf. the overview by Rix 1981, 111ff.
For more detailed discussion of Osc. Pupluna- and Umbr Vesuna- cf. García
Ramón (forthcoming).
142
Torelli 1969/70, 70.
143
Also X 4791 Vitelliae / Virgiliae / Felsiae [p]raesidis IU[N] O/NIS
POPULO[N(AE)], dat. IUNONI POPULON(AE) (Torelli 1969/1970, 20ff.).
141
100
Religious Onomastics
III 1075: dedication of a Samnian legionary) and in Samnium (IX 2630
IUNONI REG(INAE) POP(ULONAE)).
The epithet is connected with populus by the Latin scholars, cf. Myth.
Vat. 3.4.3 Populoniam, quod populos multiplicet144. This in fact makes
sense ex Latino ipso, but is no more than just a folk-etymology (or
“Gelehrtenetymologie”) due to the formal similarity with populus (Umbr.
puplum, poplom), the outcome of an agent noun *po-plh1-ó- of *pelh1‘brandish, wave’ (cf. Hom. πελεμίζειν, πόλεμος) and meant originally “the
collective who wave the arms”, as convincingly argued by Helmut Rix145.
In my opinion, Lat. Populona, Populonia, not to be separated from the
Oscan divine name, is certainly an epithet, noted as pupluna[ in a
fragment of a dedication (Sa 61: Mefete, near Aquinum ante quem 300?)
which has been edited by P. Poccetti146 and should be read as: deiv]ại
pupluna[i]147.
The divine name occurs also in two fragmentary vase inscriptions
(from Teano) in the Latin alphabet of the Republican age, which have
been recently published by D. Izzo148: [---]tted puplunai, and [---]ị
pupl[unai.
The occurence of epichoric <u> in pupluna[ (instead of <ú>) and of
<u> in the two forms in the Latin alphabet clearly point to /u/, not to /o/,
which would have been noted <ú> in epichoric Oscan and /o/ in Latin.
This clearly points to */puplōnā-/ not to +/poplōnā-/. If the starting point
was *pop°l-ōnā- the first syllable should be noted as <ú> in the Oscan
alphabet (cf. O. púd “quod”). We can therefore conclude that O. pupluna
/ pupluna is not etymologically connected with populus149: the basic form
of the feminine god name in -ōnā- is * ku̯eku̯(h1)lo- (: Ved. cakrá- ‘circle’,
Eng. wheel), the masculine counterpart of which is Umbrian pupřiko- (cf.
Bellōnā- :: bellicus). O. pupluna, pupluna /puplō ̣nā-/ (*ku̯eku̯lo-) may be
144
Also Mart. Cap. Nupt. 2.149 Iuno, ... te ... Poplonam plebes, Curitim debent
memorare bellantes ...
145
Rix 1997, 82 “la schiera che brandisce (le armi)”, with reference to pilumnoe
poploe ‘fighters with javelin’ in Carm.Sal. PF 224L.
146
Poccetti 1980, 83-4, as the author kindly confirmed to me, after a new autopsy
of the inscription.
147
Instead of the first reading Iu]ṇei pupluna[i] (Poccetti 1980).
148
Izzo 1994, 279 (kind indication of Daniel Maras, per litteras).
149
Cf. also Umb. poplo-, also PN Populonia in Etruria). A completely different
word is the GN Fufluns (: the Etruscan Bacchus), which actually means “Herr des
Gartens” (Meiser 1986: 215) or “signore della vegetazione, degli alberi, dell’
edere” (Rix 1998: 214): PSabell. *fōflōns, a derivative in *-h3no- to *fuflo-/*fō̆flodissimilated from *flu-flo- (*bhlō-dhlo- “Blühort, Garten” or * bhobhlo- “chio che
fiorisce”).
José L. García Ramón
101
understood as ‘the Lady of the Cyclic Time’: the theonym would match
Lat. *Cyclōna, in the same way that the masculine U. pupřiko- */pupliko/ in the brilliant interpretation of A.L. Prosdocimi150 would match Lat.
cyclicus. The Latin form Populona reflects a remodelling of the Oscan
form, with Sabellic representation of labiovelars as bilabials (*ku̯eku̯lo- >
PSabell. */puplo-/). One may safely assume that the goddess has been
assimilated as epiclesis to Iūnō and survived in the Oscan area as
Populona by secondary association with lat. populus.
In fact, three characteristics of Roman Juno fit the pattern of a former
Oscan ‘Lady of the Cyclic Time’, related to the cycle of the year and to
Umb. pupřiko-:
(a) Juno is a moon goddess (her original character according the
Ancients), actually “the deified new moon”, i.e. “the young one”,
as recently argued by B. W. Fortson151. She is referred to as Juno
Covella in the Kalendae of every month152, and characteristically
connected with Cyclic Time (cf. Ianus Iunonius Macr. 1.9.15).
(b) Juno is characteristically connected with feminine nature and
matters: weddings153, births154 and the months of pregnancy155
(Iuno Lucina), processions of women (Matronalia).
(c) Juno is the counterpart of masculine Genius (cf. among others Sen.
Ep. 110 singulis enim et Genium et Iunonen dederunt).
The assumption that Lat. Iuno Populona reflects an earlier Oscan
goddess ‘of the Cycle’ (/puplọ̄nā-/: *ku̯uku̯lōnā-) can hardly be
independent of a well established fact, namely the existence in Umbrian of
a divine couple, which consists of a masculine puemun156 designated as
150
Prosdocimi 1996, 543.
Fortson 2002, 72.3, with references.
152
The Kalendae, when the new moon makes itself visible, are sacred to Iuno. It is
the day when the pontifex minor announces that the new moon becomes visible,
and tells Iuno Covella, the day of the Nones corresponding to the year (Varro L.L.
6.27).
153
Cf. Iuno Iuga (cf. ῞Ηρα Ζυγία): Iunonis Iugae, quam putabant matrimonia
iungere (P.F. 92 L), unde et Iuno iugalis dicitur Serv. Aen. 4.16).
154
Cf. Varro 5.69 quae ideo quoque uidetur ab Latinis Iuno Lucina dicta ... et
lucet uel quod ab luce eius, qua quis conceptus est, usque ad eam, qua partus quis
in lucem, <l>una iuuat, donec mensibus actis produxit in lucem, ficta ab iuuando
et luce Iuno Lucina. a quo parientes eam inuocant.
155
Cf. also Myth. Vat. 3.4.3 Haec etiam coniugiis et partubus praeesse dicitur.
156
Attested also in gen. puemunes IV 3 et. al., dat. puemune III 26 et al.
151
102
Religious Onomastics
“cyclic”, like pupřiko- “κυκλικός”, and of a femenine vesuna- (s. below).
This brings us to the path of the Umbrian match of Roman Juno.
24. The goddess vesuna- is attested in Umbrian (dat. vesune TI IV
3.6.10 et al.), and in Marsian (uesune VM 3: Antinum) as well as in a
Latin dialect coloured inscription from Miliona and in the Etruscan mirror
from Castelgiorgio (ca. 300)157 cf. for instance
IV 11 klavles persnihmu puemune pupřike et vesune puemunes
pupřikes pustin ereçlu “Pray with the spatulas to to Puemun- Pupřikoand Vesuna of Puemun- Pupřiko- at each icon” (Weiss).
The name of the goddess Umb. vesuna- (and Mars. Vesuna-) allows
for an interpretation as the ‘Lady of the Year’ (cf. OE gear ‘year’, Germ.
Jahr: *(H)i̯ ēr-o-),158 or ‘of the calves’ (cf. Lat. Iūnō beside iūnīx ‘eifer’,
Hom. Ἥρα βοῶπις). Umbr. vesuna- goes back to *u̯es(s)ọ̄nā- from
*u̯etes-ōnā-159, a feminine derivative in -ōnā- to *u̯étes- ‘year’ (: Gk.
(ϝ)ἔτος).160 A variant *u̯et-elo- lives on in the Italic domain with the sense
‘yearling’ (Umbr. uitlu- ‘calf’: Lat. vitulus, also the place-name Osc.
Vitel(l)iú “Italia”)161. The name of Umb. vesuna-, Mars. Vesunaimmediately evokes the connection of Juno (and Hera) with the year (as
well as with cows and, more precisely, heifers). Let us shortly remember
the essentials about Umb. vesuna- as the divinity matching the aspects of
Juno mentioned above (§ 25).
(a) vesuna- is actually a divinity of the cyclic time, like her partner
puemon-, who is pupřiko-, namely “the god who goes in a circle”,
i.e. the god of the yearly cycle. As convincingly argued by M.
157
The mirror, now in the Baltimore Museum, which four figures and their names
(hrcle, fufluns, vesuna and fatuus (<svutaf>) in a Bacchic context, has been
insightfully interpreted by Weiss 2010, 236, 242ff.
158
Gk. Ἥρα ‘from *(H)i̯ ēr-eh2-, cf. ὥρα ‘spring’ is actually the personification of
the flowering period of the year.
159
“Herrin des Jungviehs” (Rix apud Meiser 1986, 255f), “Lady of the Year”
(Weiss 2010, Waanders 2003).
160
Cf. also *u̯ets-ó- ‘of the current year’ (cf. CLuv. ušša- ‘year’, HLuv. u-sa/i-),
Ved. vatsá- ‘yearling, calf’ (tri° ‘year’), as well as the secondary form vatsará‘year’ (pari° ‘complete year’, saṁ° ‘course of the year’), m. ‘fifth (sixth) year in
the cycle of five (six) years’ and Skr. vatsalá- ‘attached to her calf’.
161
Cf. also the gentilices Vetlius /Vitlius, Vetulius, Vitulius (Campania), Vitullius
(Histria).
José L. García Ramón
103
Weiss162, vesuna- is also directly connected with the fixation of
fates of the New Year by trying to establish the fates of the New
Year163.
(b) and (c) vesuna- is the feminine counterpart of puemunpupřiko-164, just like O. pupluna (s. above).
In conclusion: The assumption that Osc. pupluna matches an Oscan
Juno avant la lettre, which was associated as the epithet populona fits
perfectly into the pattern of continuity we have proposed between
Mycenaean and Post Mycenaean gods: major gods may have different
forerunners in different regions and a major god may reflect the
confluence of more than one divinity, who may survive as one of his
cultual epithets. The same applies to Umbr. vesuna-, a goddess of the
Cyclic Year, partner of a pupřiko- (: cyclicus), the profile of whom
matches that of Roman Juno.
Works Cited
Aravantinos, V., L. Godart, and A. Sacconi 2001. Thèbes. Fouilles de la
Cadmée I. Les tablettes en Linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Edition et
commentaire. Pisa – Roma: Instituti Poligrafici Internazionali.
Bader, F. 1962. La formation des composés nominaux latins. Paris: Les
Belles Lettres.
Barnes, T. 2008. “Homeric μῶλος Ἄρηος, Hittite mallai harrai.” In
Proceedings of the 20th Annual Ucla Indo-European Conference. Los
Angeles October 31-november 1, 2008, ed. S. W. Jamison, H. C.
Melchert, and B. Vine 1-17. Bremen: Hampen.
Böelle, C. 2004. PO-TI-NI-JA. L'élément féminin dans la religion
mycénienne (d'après les archives en linéaire B). Nancy: A.D.R.A –
Paris: De Boccard.
Chrysostomou, P. 2001. “Μια αναθηματική στήλη στην Εννοδια
κορουτάρρα.” Μουσεῖο Μπενάκη 1: 11-20.
162
Cf. the insightful chapter on Umbr. puemun-, pupřiko- and vesuna- in Weiss,
2010a: 236ff. to which the following lines are largely indebted.
163
Umbr. vesuna- is connected with the “predictive possibilities inherent in New
Year’s Day: the diviner seeks to read the future in the shapes forming in a bowl of
water and oil” (Weiss 2010, 244, with references).
164
Weiss 2010, 235.
104
Religious Onomastics
Dubois, L. 1986. Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien. Louvain-la-Neuve:
Cabay.
Fortson, B. W. 2002. “Linguistic and cultural notes on Latin Iūnius and
related topics.” In Indo-European Perspectives, ed. M.R.V. Southern,
Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph Studies 43, 61-77.
Washington D. C.
Del Freo, M. 1996-97. “Osservazioni su miceneo KO-MA-WE-TE-JA.”
Minos 31-32: 145-158.
García Ramón, J.L. 1985. “ὥτε und ὥστε bei Alkman und Pindar.” MSS 46:
81-101.
—. 1999. “Griechisch Ζητήρ· Ζεὺς ἐν Κύπρῳ, vedisch yātár-”,
Compositiones Indogermanicae in Memoriam Jochem Schindler, ed.
H. Eichner, H. C. Luschützky, and V. Sadovski, 77-96. Praha: Enigma
Corporation.
—. 2000. “Fraseología poética y epítetos literarios, los compuestos con ὀρσι°
en Píndaro y Baquílides”. Ἐπιείκεια. Studia Graeca in Memoriam Jesús
Lens Tuero, ed. M. Alganza Roldán et al., 139-151. Granada:
Athos-Pergamos.
—. 2007. “Vergil und die indogermanische Dichtersprache.” In Vergil und
das antike Epos. Festschrift Hans-Jürgen Tschiedel, ed. S. Freund, and M.
Vielberg, 267-278. Tübingen: Steiner.
—. 2008. “Mykenische Personennamen und griechische Dichtung und
Phraseologie, i-su-ku-wo-do-to und a-re-me-ne, a-re-ị-me-ne.” In
Colloquium Romanum. Atti del XII Colloquio Internazionale di
Micenologia, Roma 2006, ed. A. Sacconi et al., 325-335. Pisa-Roma:
Fabrizio Serra.
—. 2008b. “El antropónimo pilio e-ri-ko-wo y la fraseología poética,
/Erikōwos/ (μέγα κῶας Hom.+) o más bien /Erigowos/ (μέγαν γόον
HHCer., ἐρικλάγκταν γόον Pind. y μέγα βοήσας Hom., Ἐριβόας
Pind.).” Faventia 30: 33-45.
—. 2010a. “Espace réligieux, théonymes, epiclèses, à propos des nouveaux
textes thébains.” In Espace civil, espace réligieux en Égée durant la
période mycénienne, ed. I. Boehm, and S. Müller Celka, 73-92. Lyon:
Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée.
—. 2010b. “Reconstructing IE Lexicon and Phraseology, Inherited
Patterns and Lexical Renewal.” In Proceedings of the 20th Annual
Ucla Indo-European Conference. Los Angeles October 31-november 1,
2008, ed. S. W. Jamison, H. C. Melchert, and B. Vine 69-106. Bremen:
Hempen.
—. 2011. “Posidón ὀρσοτρίαινα, sincronía y tradición en un epíteto
pindárico.” In Ἀντίδωρον. Homenaje a Juan José Moralejo, ed. M. J.
José L. García Ramón
105
García Blanco et al. 305-326. Santiago de Compostela: Servicio de
Publicacións.
—. 2012. “En travaillant à une grammaire du mycénien, 1. a-pi-e-qe
/amphihenkwe/ ‘(on) mentionna, (on) énuméra’. 2. Absence d’augment
et mode injonctif. 3. di-ri-mi-jo, Drimios, fils de Zeus.” In Études
mycéniennes 2010. Actes du XIIIe colloque international sur les textes
égéens, Sèvres, Paris, Nanterre, 20-23 septembre 2010, ed. P. Carlier
et al., 434-454. Pisa-Roma: Fabrizio Serra.
—. forthcoming. “In search of Iuno in the Sabellic domain, Umbrian,
Marsian Vesuna-, Oscan Pupluna-.” In Forme e strutture della
religione nell’ Italia mediana antica. Terzo Convegno Internazionale
Instituto di Ricerche e Documentazione sugli antichi Umbri, PerugiaGubbio 21.-25.9.2011.
García Ramón, J.L., and B. Helly 2009. “Εννοδια Κορουταρρα ‘celle qui
dote d’alimentation, de croissance’ et autres divinités kourotrophes en
Thessalie.” Revue de Philologie 80.2: 291-312.
—. 2012. “Deux nouvelles épiclèses de la déesse E(n)nodia dans des
inscriptions de Larisa.” In Polymetis. Mélanges en l'honneur de
Françoise Bader, ed. A. Blanc. et al. 41-53. Louvain-la-Neuve:
Peeters.
Gulizio, J., D. Nakassis, forthcoming. “The Minoan Goddess(es): Textual
evidence for Minoan Religion.” In KE-RA-ME-JA (Studies Cynthia
Shelmerdine).
Helly, B. 1970. “À Larisa. Bouleversement et remise en ordre des
sanctuaires.” Mnemosyne 23: 250-296.
Graf, F. 2009. Apollo. London: Routledge.
Guilleux, N. 2012. “À propos de l’Hermès Areias des sources
mycéniennes (PY Tn 316, v. 7).” In Études mycéniennes 2010. Actes
du XIIIe colloque international sur les textes égéens, Sèvres, Paris,
Nanterre, 20-23 septembre 2010, ed. P. Carlier et al., 455-473. PisaRoma: Fabrizio Serra.
Haas, V. 1994. Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Leiden: Brill.
Hackstein, O. 2002. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Hinge, G. 2006. Die Sprache Alkmans. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Izzo, D. 1994. “Nuove testimonianze sul culto di Pupluna da Teanum
Sidicinum.” Ostraka 3.2: 277-284.
Kuiper, F.B.J. 1973. “Four Word Studies, I. Vedic ayā́ s ‘not to be
injured’.” IIJ 15: 170-190.
De Lamberterie, Ch. 1990. Les adjectifs grecs en -υς. Sémantique et
comparaison. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
106
Religious Onomastics
Langella, E. forthcoming. “Hermes ῾Εριούνιος, una nuova
interpretazione.” Historische Sprachwissenschaft.
Lindner, Th. 1996. Lateinische Komposita. Ein Glossar vornehmlich zum
Wortschatz der Dichtersprache. Innsbruck: IBS.
Livingston, I. 2004. A Linguistic Commentary on Livius Andronicus. New
York: Routledge.
LIV2: Rix, H. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln
und ihre Primärstammbildungen, 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Meiser, G. 1986. Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: IBS.
Mignot, X. 1969. Les verbes dénominatifs latins. Paris: Klincksieck.
Parker, R. 2005. “Artémis Ilythie et autres, le problème du nom divin utilisé
comme epiclèse.” In Nommer les dieux. Théonymes, epithètes, épiclèses
dans l'Antiquité, ed. N. Belayche et al., 219-226. Turnhout: Brepols.
Pötscher, W. 1987. Hera. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Poccetti, P. 1980. “Nuovi contributi alla topografia della documentazione
italica.” ΑΙΩΝ 2: 77-87.
Prosdocimi, A.L. 1996. “La Tavola di Agnone, una interpretazione.” In La
tavola di Agnone nel contesto italico. Convegno di Studio Agnone 1315.4.1994, ed. L. del Tutto Palma, 435-630. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.
Radke, G. 1979. Die Götter Altitaliens. Münster: Aschendorff.
Rix, H. 1965. “Hom. ὀρώρεται und die Verben ὄρνυμι und ὀρίνω.” IF 70,
25-49 (= 2001. Kleine Schriften 10-34. Bremen: Hempen).
—. 1981. “Rapporti onomastici fra il panteon etrusco e quello romano.” In
Gli etruschi e Roma. Atti dell’ incontro di studio in onore di Massimo
Pallottino, ed. G. Colonna et al., 104-126. Roma: Bretschneider (:
2001. Kleine Schriften 272-294. Bremen: Hempen).
—. 1997. “Il latino e l’etrusco.” Eutopia 4: 73-88.
—. 1998. “Teonimi etruschi e teonimi italici.” Annali della Fondazione
per il Museo Claudio Faina 5: 207-229.
Rougemont, F. 2005. “Les noms des dieux dans les tablettes inscrites en
linéaire B.” In Nommer les dieux. Théonymes, epithètes, épiclèses dans
l'Antiquité, ed. N. Belayche et al., 325-388. Turnhout: Brepols.
Ruijgh. C.J. 1967. Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec
mycénien. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Schmid, W.P. 1956. “Vedisch īmahe und Verwandtes.” IF 62: 229-239.
Schmitt, R. 1967. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit.
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Schröder, F. 1956. “Hera.” Gymnasium 63: 57-78.
Schwabl, H. 1972. “Zeus I. Epiklesen.” In Realencyclopädie der
Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A.F. Pauly, and G. Wissowa
XA, 253-376. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller. (: Zeus, München 1978).
José L. García Ramón
107
Simon, E. 1974. “Poseidon.” Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae
Classicae VII. 446-479. Zürich: Artemis.
Taillardat, J. 1984. “Une panégyrie à Cnossos? À propos de la tablette
Fp(1)14.1.” REG 97: 356-373.
Torelli, M. 1969-1970. “Luceria.” RendAccLinc 24: 20-21.
Tucker, E.F. 1990. The Creation of Morphological Regularity, Early
Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Rupprecht.
Waanders, F. 2003. “Pantoia – A Mixed Salad.” Hyperboreus 9, 16-21.
Watkins, C. 1973. “Etyma Eniana (1. uegeō ; 2. Ceu.” HSCPh 77, 195-201
(= Selected Writings, Innsbruck 1994, 487-493).
Vegas Sansalvador, A. 1992. “Χαμύνη, ein Beiname der Demeter in
Olympia. ” Glotta 70.3-4: 166-180.
—. 2008. “El epíteto Ἀμυκλαῖος, el topónimo Ἀμύκλαι y el dios sirio
Mikal.” Faventia 30: 69-82.
Weiss, Μ. 2010. Language and Ritual in Sabellic Italy. Leiden: Brill.
Weilhartner, J. 2005. Mykenische Opfergaben nach Aussage der Linear BTexte. Wien: AÖAW.
Willi, A. 1999. “Zur Verwendung und Etymologie von griechisch ἐρι-.”
Historische Sprachwissenschaft 112: 86-100.

Download Report

Poetic Language and Religion in Greece and Rome Edited by J

Paperzz.com

Your Paperzz